![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The CfD notice above about proposed deletion of the categories for Subsidence craters and Unknown origin craters also had a question whether an essay on categorization of craters was needed. So far in the CfD discussion the essay idea has gotten some support. SMcCandlish suggested it could go under WP:GEOLOGY, which makes sense to me. So I came back here to start this discussion.
Background info: in 2009 there was a mass renaming CfD of crater-related categories which moved categories including "Craters..." to "Impact craters...". The lesson learned was that it helped a lot to have the criteria for inclusion, the type of crater, as part of the category name. But over the years some well-meaning editors re-created some of the ambiguous categories. I recently cleaned up Category:Craters into a disambiguation category with the template instructing editors to categorize under Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters or Category:Explosion craters. I also found Category:Craters on Earth had been re-created, and turned it into a template-redirected category pointing at Category:Impact craters on Earth. I'm not going to submit CfD's for those two, because human nature says they'll just get re-created again. They're better off with pointers to the right places to categorize.
While an essay is in discussion, other tips which should be included are use of the {{ Cite Earth Impact DB}} template for confirmed impact craters (which adds the article to Category:Earth Impact Database) or placing unconfirmed craters in Category:Possible impact craters on Earth. There has been a problem with overzealous editors pouncing on news of possible new impact craters, categorizing and describing them as if confirmed. The problem is that it can take years to confirm evidence (usually shocked quartz but sometimes shatter cones or other impactites) them and get them into the Earth Impact Database, especially for buried craters which can't be accessed from the surface.
Other advice should say what not to categorize as craters. For example, cave collapses are called sinkholes. Other miscellaneous depressions should go under Category:depressions (geology).
So there's stuff to record to help future editors. Who has other ideas to add to it? We should also figure out a good and consistent place for it to go in the WikiProject Geology page hierarchy. Ikluft ( talk) 17:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Needs discussion
Should we move the essay
User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters ->
Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Essays/Categorization of craters? I'd like to hear from at least a few WikiProject Geology editors before I move it to a subpage of the project. This is to establish that future WikiProject Geology essays should not be created initially in the WikiProject Geology namespace, but should be started by editors as user essays and would only become a WikiProject Geology essay after at least minimal response in the WikiProject's talk page accepting it as part of the WikiProject. I'll start the tally with my own response - see
WP:Discussion templates for more like the one I used. If you don't support the move, please state what changes the essay needs for that to be acceptable and to reach consensus on the move. Obviously this does not set the essay in concrete - normal wikimaintenance will continue under the umbrella of WikiProject Geology after the move.
Ikluft (
talk)
20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Calling attention to two category renaming discussions currently in progress: Category:Crater lakes to Category:Volcanic crater lakes at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_20#Category:Crater_lakes, and Category:Annular lakes to Category:Impact crater lakes at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_20#Category:Annular_lakes. Ikluft ( talk) 05:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A review is requested of this draft on the forecast of this future supercontinent. Is the draft properly supported by reliable sources, and should it be accepted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Might someone be interested in looking at Darling Cinder Pit, apparently our only article about a cinder mine. Sources mention cinders, scoria and pumice but I'm not sure if there was just one type of stuff mined here or different materials for different purposes.---- Pontificalibus 15:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#March 2 under the title "Mineral species" with which members of this WikiProject may be able to help. Narky Blert ( talk) 04:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
there has been a request for a second opinion on Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1 that needs input. Note that I am the GA nominator of that article. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
? Happyhodgepodge ( talk) 23:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I often find myself wanting to cite geological maps published by the British Geological Survey, either the printed paper versions or else the scanned images of the same material available on-line these days on the BGS website but am often at a loss as to how best to cite them using the templates available (cite book, cite web, of course). Anyone else have concerns here? It will apply to maps produced in any nation and not just GB (and indeed in some respects to the citing of maps more widely). thanks Geopersona ( talk) 10:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to really expand and polish up this article. I believe it's better than a stub rating now (and its importance might be worth reassessing) but would like that determination done independently. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 19:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A weird stumpy little article. It feels like this material is better covered elsewhere and it might be better to merge it there. Anyone have any ideas? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I created the article Telegraph Plateau but cannot work out how this somewhat archaic Victorian term fits in with modern terminology. I think it's connected with the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone but exactly how I couldn't say. For all I know, there may already be an article on the region this could be merged to as a history section. Can anyone help clear this up? Spinning Spark 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
So I was revisiting the Moppin Complex article, and found myself visiting the Complex (geology) article, which turns out to be a stubby little article lacking references, and found it redlinks Lithodemic unit. It looks like the Wikipedia stratigraphy articles have very little on lithodemic stratigraphy. So here's my question: Does lithodemic stratigraphy warrant its own article, or should it be introduced as a new section under Lithostratigraphy? I'm good either way but I think we need something coherent on this topic.
(I'd then fix the redlink in Complex (geology) to point to the article or section on lithodemic stratigraphy, then flesh out the Complex (geology) article, then finally pop my stack to Moppin Complex. Ars longa, vita brevis.) -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like an expert answer to a question, which is whether connemara marble is a true marble, unlike verd antique. It appears to me that it is a metamorphic rock made up of calcium carbonate, in which case it is marble, but "Dammit, Jim, I'm a chemist, not a geologist". Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
I assume that Template:Pleistocene Lakes and Seas is within the remit of this project. The template says that it is about "Pleistocene proglacial lakes and related seas" but a number of entries are about Pluvial lakes rather than glacial lakes. Would it make sense to split these off into their own template? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
After the promotion of Paleocene to FA, I thought it was worth discussing how to improve stage/age articles. I posted this here rather than at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Periods as that seems to be largely inactive. I think the most important things a stage/age article should include: History of definition, boundaries and subdivisions (Ammonite zones, Geochrons etc) and notable events if there are any. Many of the mesozoic stage/ages include long taxa tables containing dinosaurs, etc which I think are overly long and don't add much to the article, and should be removed, and perhaps replaced with a link to or a list of formations of that age. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad this issue has been brought up. I also have concerns about the recent effort by several editors (namely Draco ignoramus sophomoricus and GleisReis) to add extensive taxa lists to articles on geological stages. I believe that the age info for taxa are often sourced directly from the "temporal range" section of taxoboxes in other Wikipedia articles. The problem I see is that there is not much effort to confirm or clarify the dating of the taxa in question. Relating to some debates in Triassic biostratigraphy, if one paleontologist dates a fossil assemblage as Carnian based on conchostracans and another dates it to Norian based on magnetostratigraphy, should its taxa be on the Norian or Carnian page? Simply trusting Wikipedia to have accurate age ranges (often sourced simply from fossilworks or entirely unsourced) not only has the potential to be wrong, but is also circular reasoning in itself. I have several solutions in mind. One is to delete the taxon lists entirely, though I don't want to resort to this option since the editors mentioned above have spent a lot of time and effort in creating them. Another option is to give the lists their own articles. These articles will need to be properly sourced, maintained and refined constantly, but it would at least clean up clutter on the main pages of the geological units. Part of the solution may involve more emphasis on the geological formations used to justify the dating of the taxa. Some marine strata (and their corresponding taxa) can be safely assigned to a stage based on index fossils, but for terrestrial strata a nuanced discussion of potential age dating may be necessary. That's my main issue with the process of creating taxon lists: lack of nuance when linking taxa to a temporal stage. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm wandering through the orphaned articles and I came across biolith, which is a sad, sad little sub-stub. Should it be a standalone article, or should it be merged somewhere? Or is it outdated and in need of deletion? I tried some googling but didn't come up with much that seemed conclusive. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I just reviewed Mount Takahe, which is at FAC at the moment; neither I nor the other reviewer there has any background in geology. Since the FAC is short of reviews I thought I'd drop a note here to see if anyone is interested in taking a look at it from a subject-matter expert point of view. Also pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, the nominator and primary author, to let them know about this note. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
which looks like a bit of a car crash to my eyes. EdwardLane ( talk) 10:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)The magmas appear to have formed through fractional crystallization at varying pressures,[63] and ultimately came from the lithosphere at 80–90-kilometre (50–56 mi) depth,[64] that was affected by subduction processes[65] over 85 million years ago.[14]
"Glutenite" appears to be a regional geological term that is only used by Chinese geologists, both in reference to a specifc facies and as a type of reservoir. It's not an obscure term by any means, with around 4,200 hits on Google Scholar. However none of the papers that use the term that I've seen actually specifically defines it. This paper states that: "Glutenites, especially those block-like massive deposits in rift basins, consist of sandstones and conglomerates, commonly include alluvial fan, fan delta, nearshore subaqueous fan and sublacustrine fan." but this definition is still lacking, as it doesn't make sense of why Glutenite would be referenced as a specific facies as separate from sandstone and conglomerate. Does anyone have a more specific definition of the term? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I've managed to find some papers that contain thin sections and rock samples. To me it looks like a well cemented conglomerate with angular clasts. Given the evidence that has previously been presented, does anyone disagree with a Glutenite --> Conglomerate (geology) redirect?. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Curious whether there's any chance [ [1]] is in good faith. I suspect a marketing edit. Suggestions on how to deal with it? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added a welcome template and a short explanation as to why their edit was reverted on their user talk page. That should probably be enough for now. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Friends, please take a look at this article. I've taken a stab at bringing better coherence and completeness to it. Still needs some work, I think. Further discussion at the talk page. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
So I've run into a couple of articles that actually look quite good but are still rated Start-quality. My understanding is that any editor can change the rating to as high as B-class if warranted. Is that correct? Example: Conglomerate (geology) really looks better than Start class to me.-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello geology people! I'm actually here from Typo Team because Classification of silicate minerals ended up on the list of articles with detected typos since it had chemical formulas that weren't in templates. I was going through it to add Template:Chem2 around all the formulas, but then I found some that didn't match the July 2020 IMA master list and thought I should update them, but I know next to nothing about geology and only a little about chemistry. Anyway, I've been replacing the formulas with the ones listed on the master list and organizing it based on the New Dana Classification (using webmineral.com's list). Is there any reason I shouldn't update all the chemical formulas to the current ones? Are the websites I'm using accurate? And finally, what do I do about the minerals added since 1997 that don't have a place in the classification? If anyone else has a better idea about how to fix the article, I won't mess with it, but I'd be happy to fix it as long as my edits are making it better. Thank you! TuskDeer ( talk) 23:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
After I requested that this be added a few weeks ago, we now have a list of the 1,000 most viewed geology articles in the last month, the link is here. Unsuprisingly, Earth is #1, but I'm suprised that the Chelyabinsk meteor article is still getting over 1,000 views per day nearly 8 years later. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
A complex RfC is going on, after a long bout of edit war. Uninvolved editors needed at the discussion. Aditya( talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a (fairly decent; could use work) article on tuff, a (fairly decent; could use work) article on tephra, and an article on pyroclastic rock that I'm inclined to put some work into improving. I note, however, that Volcaniclastic is presently a redirect to Pyroclastic rock, which seems not quite right. As I understand it, having touched up my understanding from three or four textbooks just now, volcaniclastics is the broadest term, taking in any kind of rock composed predominantly of broken fragments of volcanic rock. (Fisher (1961) "Proposed clasification of volcaniclastic sediments and rocks. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 72, pp.1409-1414; cited by Fisher and Schmincke (1984), Pyroclastic Rocks) This would include everything from tuffs to cinder beds to debris flows, lahars, and fanglomerates whose provenance is a volcanic field. Pyroclastics are rock fragments produced directly by volcanic action and so would exclude many debris flows, lahars, and fanglomerates. Tuff is one form of consolidated pyroclastics; tephra is unconsolidated pyroclastics. This is pretty much how Fisher and Schmincke (1984) lay it out in their table on page 90.
Assuming that's the right hierarchy, it seems to me that volcaniclastics should be the "root" article for pyroclastic rock, tuff, and tephra, with tuff and tephra being subsets of pyroclastic rocks. That suggests the redirect of volcaniclastics to pyroclastics is not ideal. I'm thinking of breaking volcaniclastics out into its own article (I'm happy to do the work to give this a good start) and tweak the others to reflect the subsetting Volcaniclastics -> pyroclastics -> (tuff, tephra) just a bit better. But I thought I'd bounce that off y'all first to get your comments and suggestions. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got a Draft:Volcaniclastics article up and slowly coming into focus, and y'all are welcome to jump in and contribute before I move this over the existing redirect. Unsurprisingly, there are some slight differences in how different experts define the stuff. @ Mikenorton, I haven't looked at that chapter yet but will do so soon.-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone with subject knowledge have a look at List of supercontinents? A certain amount of at least recent editing seems to be speculative and/or fiction, but I can't easily tell how much. Thanks. —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A conversation has been started at WP:Palaeontology regarding the tables that have been added to Golden Valley Formation and others. Comments are welcomed-- Kev min § 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Nominated for good article status. The review came back with a long list of tweaks, and I'm headed out of town Monday. I'll do what I can before then, but would appreciate anything any of the rest of you can do to help. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I have attempted to expand this stub article and would like to request someone to reassess its rating. Brynnams ( talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would someone kindly take a look at Morainic drift? It is a single lined, unsourced article which was edited (excluding maintenance edits) 14 years ago. Last maintenance, or any type of edit was eight years ago. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thanks everybody. See you guys around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I've put up a proposal to move Pluton to Igneous intrusion, for the reasons given on the talk page there. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 06:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif ( talk) 08:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The Hoodoo (geology) article is a quite well-written article that is the target of some 11 redirects for various synonyms, including Tent rock. The Mushroom rock article is a not-so-well-written article that is the target for three variations on the name. Looking these over, looking over the (not numerous) books I have on hand that discuss pediment rocks and their ilk, and looking through some of the papers pulled up from Google Scholar, it seems that hoodoos distinguished from mushroom rocks mostly in that hoodoos form from erosion of resistant beds over nonresistant beds, whereas mushroom rocks form from erosion of more or less uniformly resistant beds by possibly different processes. However, there's a lot of overlap of terms and with the term "pedestal rock."
I wanted to get some feel for how y'all understand the distinction between the two. The hoodoo article I'm disinclined to touch much; it's a good article and about all I'd add is a short paragraph explaining the distinction from mushroom rocks -- assuming there really is one. The mushroom rock article needs to either be merged with hoodoo (if they are not really distinct concepts) or needs to clearly spell out the distinction and focus narrowly on mushroom rocks and not hoodoos. My tentative take is that they are distinct enough concepts (as I've just defined them) to justify two articles, but I could easily be persuaded otherwise.
FWIW, Oxford Dictionary of Geology and Earth Sciences defines hoodoos, tent rocks, and pedestal rocks separately, redirects "mushroon rock" to "pedestal rock", and defines pedestal rocks as products of wind- or water-driven erosion of uniform rock; tent rocks as products of erosion of resistant beds over soft beds; and hoodoos nearly the same as tent rocks. Not that ODGES is the last word, but just to illustrate the confusion I'm seeing here. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 04:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
is there anyone interested in commenting/reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2? After five weeks it has only two comments with explicit support/oppose. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Cretaceous is currently the most viewed Geological period article, getting around 1,400 views per day. There is currently an effort by WP:PALAEO to get Cretaceous to be the second featured geological period article after Paleocene. Obviously most of the Palaeontology-minded editors have no expertise in the Geology. In comparison to the equivalent section on the Paleocene article, the section is quite lacking, and some assistance to help get the section into shape would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently salt flat redirects to a disambiguation page. However, the two main topics are salt pan and dry lake, which do not seem to be distinct concepts (or maybe salt flats are a kind of dry lake?), and the articles use many of the same examples. Can these articles be merged or at least clarified as to what the distinction is? Can salt flat redirect to salt pan instead of a disambiguation page? I do not have the background in this area to be confident what the right approach is here. Somatochlora ( talk) 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added a lot of information to the stub class article Biogenic Substance, and was wondering if I could please have a reassessment of its rating? Thank you -- Wikiuser553 ( talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
We could use some help building this short article. Bearian ( talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A few months ago I tried to expand the Template:Geological period to the epochs, and failed miserably, chiefly because there was little point in replacing the templates that were already there. However, I really do not like the ununified look of the geological timescale pages' templates in the top right-hand corner (example: Tonian vs. Paleocene). I wish to replace the existing template on all of these pages with an infobox-style template that would contain information such as:
-image (map) -image (life forms/reconstruction of how the time period looked) -classification (period, epoch, era, stage/age, eon) -upper bound defined by (is there a fossil or geological process that suddenly appears or disappears at this boundary? is it radiometrically defined (i.e the Orosirian)?) -upper bound age (how old the upper boundary is) -lower bound defined by -lower bound age -next period (what comes after the division of time being discussed?) -previous period -usage (regional? international? outdated? proposed? etc) -coined by (who first used the term?) -ratification date (for internationally recognized divisions of time as recognized by the international commission on stratigraphy OR by regional or governmental agencies, if and where applicable) -timeline? (example: Template:Silurian graphical timeline) -contained subdivisions (is the article subject about a period with epoch subdivisions? what are they?)
Using such a template would not only create a more unified look for these pages, but it would also encourage more information to be added that often times is not included on the pages in question (most subdivisions of the Cambrian, for example, don't have most of the info I've listed above anywhere on them) or that is hard to find on some pages. Benniboi01 ( talk) 04:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I would really like to see the subdivisions displayed as they presently are in geologic time period articles, with a vertical timeline with links. Would it be possible to do this with these templates? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Benniboi01: If you want images to display a certain way in an infobox, take a look at Module:InfoboxImage. For a simple example of using that module, take a look at Template:Infobox ecoregion. The empty infobox looks a little odd, with some overlapping items --- I can help debug when you've settled the code a bit. — hike395 ( talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! I'd just make the "First proposer" with a small letter, not capital. Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
|lowergsspacceptdate=
hard to read and type. Thanks! —
hike395 (
talk)
14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Benniboi01: Can I suggest
Template:Infobox geological timespan or
Template:Infobox geologic timespan ? Time implies one point in time, while timespan implies an interval. Or maybe
Template:Infobox geologic interval? —
hike395 (
talk)
22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Whichever we decide, note you should put it into the tracking category in the code that I added at the bottom to check parameters. — hike395 ( talk) 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I have created Native state (metallurgy) and Talk:Native state (metallurgy) (do look at my comment on the talk page). It is a stub article. It is also an orphan except from a hatnote link. I don't know which other articles should link to it, so there's a task for those who do know. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The article Petrogenetic grid mentions " Carpolite", which links to a disambiguation page. Neither of the two entries on that disambiguation page make sense in the context of the article, I think. It seems that this carpolite is supposed to be a (type of) mineral, but I can't find anything about this online. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks! Lennart97 ( talk) 16:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I've posted this at the Caves WikiProject too: I see that we have now entered International Year of Caves and Karst, a collaborative initiative involving a host of interested parties - is there any interest on any group or individual's part on Wikipedia to play a role by improving coverage of these topics during 2021? cheers Geopersona ( talk) 11:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been working over the Limestone article, and had occasion to mention Bowen's decarbonization series, which describes the sequence of distinctive minerals that form during increasingly intense metamorphism of carbonate rock. I am reluctant to place a full discussion of this in Limestone since that article is now already rather lengthy and it's tangential. (I mention it there in a brief paragraph distinguishing dense limestone described as "marble" from true marble.) Alternatives I see are: Put it in the Marble article; add it as a subsection in Bowen's reaction series; or make it its own stub article. Any preferences? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ciolo (Apulia)#Geology states Ciolo is mostly formed by a
basal portion[disambiguation needed], wich includes limestones and bioclastic limestones...
, where 'basal portion' simply links to the disambiguation page
basal. What does this "basal portion" mean (if it means anything at all)?
Lennart97 (
talk)
16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't seem to stop dropping grenades. Blame it on the COVID keeping me at home with time on my hands to fuss over Wikipedia.
Some time back I worked over the Lava article, making sure everything was properly sourced and expanding some on the chemical and physical range of properties of lavas. I'm now looking at Magma. To give some perspective, the article TOC for Lava is:
1 Properties of lava 1.1 Composition 1.2 Rheology 1.3 Thermal 2 Lava morphology 3 Lava landforms 4 Lava fountains 5 Hazards 6 Towns destroyed by lava flows 7 Towns damaged by lava flows 8 Towns destroyed by tephra
while that for Magma is
1 Physical and chemical properties of magma 1.1 Temperature 1.2 Density 1.3 Composition 2 Origins of magma by partial melting 3 Evolution of magmas 4 Migration and solidification of magmas 5 Magma usage for energy production
I've simplified these a bit. The relevant point is that most of each article is unique to that article, and the division between articles makes a lot of sense -- but the sections on properties of lava/magma are almost a complete overlap. It would be nice to find an elegant way to only have to write this information once, but off-hand I don't know what the best approach would be.
I do notice that almost everything in Lava that does not overlap would apply as well to Lava flow -- the latter is currently a redirect to Lava. If we moved Lava to Lava flow, the properties section of Lava flow could be reduced to little more than "Lava is magma that has reached the surface and degassed" with either a Main or See Also pointing the reader to the Magma article (or the Properties section of Magma). Another possibility may be to use template:Excerpt to pull that section from Magma directly into Lava, but I haven't any experience with that.
Would appreciate your thoughts. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Geology of the Death Valley area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene ( talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I hope I have not been too presumptuous in removing your project from the talk page of the article. If this is wrong please could you explain on /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/archive1 how I can improve the article re geology. For example if you are aware of future expansion of Batı Raman oil field. Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Mount St. Helens for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I've recently created the article Springstone. Sources differ as to whether this is a form of chlorite or serpentinite mineral. I've gone with chlorite, since the sources giving this include print works, not just auction sites, and because other sources describe areas which have deposits of both springstone and serpentinite, suggesting the two are distinct. However, I'd greatly appreciate input from editors with expertise in this field who can help ensure to get this right. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this article and about references to this theory being inserted into a large number of other geology articles, mostly by @ Feline Hymnic:. It has a lot of the red flags I associate with crank theories, but I also see that Foulger is referenced in Philpotts and Ague (though only as a bare mention that the plume theory is not undisputed.) How much of a real debate is there? Is this a legitimate minority view or is it fringe? As one who is only an amateur geologist (albeit with a Ph.D. in a sister field) I'm not confident I have a good feel for this. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That's all very hand-wavy and imperfect. But might it be a starter for consideration ? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's unhealthy to divide theories that are in tension -- a reader would have to read two articles to get a balanced view, and each article may drift towards the POV of the strongest proponents of the theory. I thus propose merging Mantle plume and Plate theory (volcanism) into one article. Perhaps the merged article should be titled Causes of volcanism ? — hike395 ( talk) 02:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this looks suspiciously like consensus, I've created Draft:Intraplate volcanism and done the bare bones cut and paste of both articles. We can all work on integrating the material. If the result looks good, we can then move this to article space and change the old pages to redirects. There may be some formalities required (such as a formal merge request on both old pages to the new one) but we can worry about that when the time comes. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The creator of the Plate Theory (volcanism) article SphericalSong has rewritten around a dozen hotspot related articles, attempting to promote the "plate theory" and cast doubt on the mantle plumes, see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Many of which cite "MantlePlumes.org" and Foulgers book. I am concerned that these edits do not conform to the neutral point of view and our WP:FRINGE policy on minority viewpoints. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a oft-discussed theory that mantle plumes form when, or are influenced by, downgoing slabs from subduction zones sink into the mantle and stir/melt in the lower mantle and core-mantle boundary zone. That is definitively a mainstream viewpoint but it's not the same thing as the "plate theory" discussed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
A major problem is the actual framing of the debate. There is a perceived presentation as an "either/or" of all the phenomena being described: "mantle plumes describe everything" or "plate theory describes everything". In some geographic locations (some seamount chains spring to mind) there seems to be exceptionally good evidence for mantle plumes. But it also looks as though "plate theory" might be a plausible, possibly more appropriate, explanation at other locations (let's say Iceland or Yellowstone, although I'm open to correction on those choices). It might be helpful if we could de-couple the "either/or, applying to all instances" aspect. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 13:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
A new sidebar - {{ Geology sidebar}} - has been created by User:Bluealbion and has been added to several articles. Leaving aside issues such as the spelling of tectonics, the redlink, what is included and what left out and how it is organised, is it a useful addition? Mikenorton ( talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We already have a a footer {{ Geology}}. Such footers are ideal for top-down navigation of a broad topic, while also avoiding the "in your face" nature of sidebars. Given that we have the footer, what additional benefit does a similar, indeed potentially near-equivalent, sidebar bring? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have massively expanded the Jurassic article since December, so I've nominated it for peer review. If you have any comments, please send them to Wikipedia:Peer review/Jurassic/archive1. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello all,
I've tried to clean up the First appearance datum article a little, just so it seems clearer and has some references to back the content up. I'd appreciate any input you all might have as to what could be added or changed. In particular, I'm not sure if information about the related concept Last appearance datum can also be included in this article. Or, similarly, if I can link to List of index fossils, which seems like another similar concept--I'm just not sure if it is relevant or helpful to link to it from the First appearance datum page. Would be glad to hear any of your thoughts about this. Thanks, RVSNS ( talk) 21:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Pangaea is one of our most viewed articles, receiving nearly 1 million views last year. (For a comprehensive list of the top 1000, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Popular pages). There are large amounts of uncited text. The problem with writing about Pangea, as I've learned with Jurassic, is that it covers such a large span of time that it feels difficult to know what to write about, and the need to cover the topic comprehensively but succinctly. The article should cover the asssembly and collapse of Pangea from a geological perspective, but I don't know how much technical detail should be included, given the likely lay audience. I think Kent G. Budge has done excellent work on the life section, but I wonder if a more comprehensive treatment would be better. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Aaaand ... here's the first map. Crude enough to not infringe copyright, but a reasonable representation of Torsvik and Cock's reconstruction. Tell me what you think before I make the effort to generate more. Incidentally, Torsvik has a software package downloadable from his web site at Cambridge for producing globe maps. Alas, I could not get it to work on my Ubuntu system -- it had a slew of package dependencies that no one site could all resolve and I finally gave up in frustration. Also not sure if the format is really what is needed or if you can actually make PNGs from it. Or what licensing terms would apply.
If this seems okay, then I plan for subsequent maps to show orogenies as red zones. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Otherwise I think it's pretty good. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Are Rügen White Chalk Formation and Rugen Formation the same thing? The articles are uniformly uninformative and identical (a geologic formation from the Cretaceous in Germany). The references are not usable, since they reference the front page of a website instead of a specific webpage containing information. They were created by the same user at the same point in time. They both appear on List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Germany -- 67.70.27.105 ( talk) 15:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Requested move 7 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:
There is a discussion of how and whether to modify {{ Life timeline}} (a graphical timeline that shows the history of life over the last 4500 Ma) to obey the accessibility guideline to avoid small fonts. You're welcome to join in the discussion here. — hike395 ( talk) 06:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The question is fairly simple and straightforward: while attempting to improve the article on Dashrath Manjhi we are trying to identify the type of rock formation that Gehlaur Ganj ( side view) is. Is it a Horst, is it a stretch of lava that filled the crack in the crust and then solidified (somewhat reminiscing Castle Rock (Edinburgh)), or is it something else (and what is the scientific name for it)? Any clarification on the matter would be highly appreciated! -- Wesha ( talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
2008 Sichuan earthquake, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Stepped profile has been unsourced for some years- and the term definitely exists in context of rivers as mentioned in the article from some brief Googling.
The weird thing is that all the articles linking to it are about architecture or mountains- not about rivers/water-bodies. Should I find another target for those articles and add the river-based sources to this one? Or is there a similar article about steps in nature/design/engineering this could merge or be improved by? I feel like the term "stepped profile" might be too multi-disciplinary (math, geology, etc.) that I'm struggling to figure out just how to fulfil basic notability! Help? Estheim ( talk) 22:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mikenorton, Paul H., DanHobley; I went ahead with the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stepped profile. The incoming WL discreps and vagueness make me feel this article serves no good to any reader. Estheim ( talk) 09:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I have been making edits to this article Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact as part of an University assignment. My objective is to improve this article from its status as a stub, and also improve its assessment rating on this WIkiproject. This article primarily discusses a proposed impact structure in the middle of Australia, and the evidence for this theory. The theory was coined and popularised by Daniel Connelly.
I would like this article to be reviewed and rated by members of this Wikiproject.
I have also posted this article on [ Australia]. Thanks JeffreyYin333 ( talk)
I have just been going through Category:Possible impact craters on Earth. There are some iffy ones like Middle-Urals Ring Structure, which appear to have passing mentions in the academic literature. I found three that I couldn't find any non-conference abstract sourcing for, Fried Egg structure, Gatun structure and Guarda Crater. As such I have nominated them for deletion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Syneclise appears to be a former-Soviet geological term used to refer to some types of sedimentary basin. Would this be better treated as part of the sedimentary basin article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Complex volcano and Volcanic group are two list-like articles. I'm struggling to see the difference. Each article acknowledges the other in the See also section, but the leads really muddy the distinction with the alt names that completely overlap. Unless there really is a clear difference (note that the latter has no sources), shouldn't they be merged. MB 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is prompted by the meteor impact discussion. Obviously we follow general WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, but perhaps it would be useful to flesh out some specifics for geology articles? For example, we had a discussion many months back where the idea was floated, and not particularly challenged, that stratigraphic units of formation rank or above were presumptively notable. (I'd add the qualifier that there have to be multiple independent reliable sources that treat the unit as a formation.) We're having a discussion now emphasizing the need for multiple independent reliable sources for impact events, which is unsurprising considering this is exactly the kind of topic that attracts the fringe. Would there be any value in having a permanent section in the geology project emphasizing WP:NOTABILITY and particularly spelling out how it applies to certain geology topics? If so, are there any other geology topics that inherently are prone to this kind of thing? (I'm looking at some of my own formation articles on New Mexico formations, FWIW.) I'd exclude taxonomic articles from this discussion, since that's more of a WP:Paleontology issue and they seem to have a robust understanding of when a taxon is notable. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Page is up. Feel free to tweak. One question for the group: My impression is that mindat.org, much as I like the site, is largely user-generated and therefore not a reliable source, notwithstanding it is used in the great majority of mineral articles. Am I harshing too much on the site? Should something be said about it in the notability/reliability/due weight page? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 03:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently a user named Aleral Wei added a note to the Guarapuava-Tamarana Sarusas eruption. The note said that the eruption might be effusive. I looked at the reference, I saw that there were high amounts of effusive eruptive activity, but no mention of Guarapuava - Tamarana Sarusas. Also, the igneous province where the eruption occurred ( The Parana-Etendaka traps ) has some rheoignimbrite, meaning some eruptions were explosive. What are your thoughts? Thank you. The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 02:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I actually saw the fact that lava fountaining took place. Did ash columns occur but rarely? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 04:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on a draft overhauling the stratigraphy section of the Carboniferous article over at User:Hemiauchenia/sandboxCarboniferous. The main issue with the Carboniferous is that most regions of the world have their own separate local stratigraphic schemes, which are still in widespread use. Would it be worth creating some kind of diagram or template showing the correlation of the local schemes with the ICS one, like this one? We already have Template:Carboniferous European subdivisions, but that only shows the European scheme. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
"List of minerals of Pakistan" strikes me as an unnecessary list, particularly since there is no such list for any other geographical area. Thoughts? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know what "stone stripping" related to periglaciation is? I came across this phrase in a source but couldn't find a definition or a WP article for it. Volcano guy 17:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This article has me scratching my head for a couple of reasons. What's the scope of the article, the glacial landform, or the French term? And is it a "vital" article, or a "low-importance" one -- or somehow both? Thanks in advance for any assistance, ideally in the form of comments at, or edits in, the article in question. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 08:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Is this a notable fringe theory? It seems to unduly promote the hypothesis. Large amounts of text are uncited. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This deletion discussion needs attention from someone with experience in mineralogy to help decide whether this material should have its own article. Please help. -- ΟΥΤΙΣ ( talk) 05:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
"Neuburger Kieselerde; English: Neuburg Siliceous Earth (Göske and Kachler 2008): Informal term, currently applied for the unconsolidated, fine-grained, carbonate-free, predominantly siliceous sediment of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member, which is mined for industrial applications."
Thanks for your contributions here, now we are really having a good talk about what we can find about this in often-used scientific sources.
I like the idea to have an article about the Wellheim Formation that mentions the Neuburg deposit as a member and also has something about its commercial exploitation.
So let's give up
Draft:Siliceous earth for the time being.
I was bold and created
Draft:Wellheim Formation, transferring the relevant content and sources we already had in the other draft.
Please have a look and state your opinions. Also don't be hesistant to edit if you think you can improve what we already have there. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
14:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you think that we can use
Sealife, 2013 to get a source for the current "other sources assert a biogenic origin for the material" statement?
It's a long article, but freely available to read online or as a PDF. I'm planning on reading it within the next days. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
06:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, ok sorry: It's in the first sentence of their abstract. I'll just cite the abstract. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
07:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
And.... it's
an article! *pops a champagne bottle*
Thanks for all your support and contributions in this successful attempt to avoid
WP:PROMO. I feel the current text is quite good at aiming for a neutral point of view, mentioning the producer's claims but putting them into the context of mainstream research. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 who closed the
AfD debate for
Neuburg siliceous earth said on their talk page that it would be ok if I ask here for a volunteer to do the merge with
Wellheim Formation.
I'm sorry, I don't feel that it would be the right thing for me to do it myself, under the current circumstances. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
10:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for doing the move,
Hemiauchenia.
I don't want to go on your nerves too much, but now I need help with accessing a pay-walled source. Please see my explanation on the
talk page. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
05:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Another thing remains to be decided to wrap up the consequences of the deletion of
Neuburg siliceous earth:
What about
Draft:Siliceous earth now?
My current feeling is that it should rather be deleted: Even looking at this very section's discussion, there were several different opinions about an exact definition and the common-ness of its scientific use.
Do you think it is possible to get a consensus about what a possible article Siliceous earth should say about its scientific definition? And would it be worth the effort to try and write it, given that it isn't really in scientific use anymore, in my (rather un-studied) opinion? --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Geology of the Bryce Canyon area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 07:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please join Talk:Fissure (disambiguation)#Primary topic of whether Fissure related to anatomy is really a primary topic. Editors here probably would agree it is not since Fissure pertains to geology as prominently if not moreso. Coastside ( talk) 21:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.-- Kev min § 01:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The Rhyolite article seems to me to be within striking distance of a GA nomination, if that kind of thing matters to you. Good article status does offer the opportunity to link the article in the daily "Did you know?" section. Would appreciate any comments on what more is needed. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I discovered several paragraphs of flagrant copyright violation (word for word copies of Stern 2005) at Oceanic trench. I've cut everything I could find that was copied from that source and asked for a reversion delete, but would appreciate other eyeballs looking for copyvios by the same editor of possibly different sources ( User:Zyzzy, who apparently racked up quite a history before dropping from the scene in late 2005). Meanwhile, the article is badly cut up and bleeding, and probably needs some significant rewriting. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 00:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The CfD notice above about proposed deletion of the categories for Subsidence craters and Unknown origin craters also had a question whether an essay on categorization of craters was needed. So far in the CfD discussion the essay idea has gotten some support. SMcCandlish suggested it could go under WP:GEOLOGY, which makes sense to me. So I came back here to start this discussion.
Background info: in 2009 there was a mass renaming CfD of crater-related categories which moved categories including "Craters..." to "Impact craters...". The lesson learned was that it helped a lot to have the criteria for inclusion, the type of crater, as part of the category name. But over the years some well-meaning editors re-created some of the ambiguous categories. I recently cleaned up Category:Craters into a disambiguation category with the template instructing editors to categorize under Category:Impact craters, Category:Volcanic craters or Category:Explosion craters. I also found Category:Craters on Earth had been re-created, and turned it into a template-redirected category pointing at Category:Impact craters on Earth. I'm not going to submit CfD's for those two, because human nature says they'll just get re-created again. They're better off with pointers to the right places to categorize.
While an essay is in discussion, other tips which should be included are use of the {{ Cite Earth Impact DB}} template for confirmed impact craters (which adds the article to Category:Earth Impact Database) or placing unconfirmed craters in Category:Possible impact craters on Earth. There has been a problem with overzealous editors pouncing on news of possible new impact craters, categorizing and describing them as if confirmed. The problem is that it can take years to confirm evidence (usually shocked quartz but sometimes shatter cones or other impactites) them and get them into the Earth Impact Database, especially for buried craters which can't be accessed from the surface.
Other advice should say what not to categorize as craters. For example, cave collapses are called sinkholes. Other miscellaneous depressions should go under Category:depressions (geology).
So there's stuff to record to help future editors. Who has other ideas to add to it? We should also figure out a good and consistent place for it to go in the WikiProject Geology page hierarchy. Ikluft ( talk) 17:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Needs discussion
Should we move the essay
User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters ->
Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Essays/Categorization of craters? I'd like to hear from at least a few WikiProject Geology editors before I move it to a subpage of the project. This is to establish that future WikiProject Geology essays should not be created initially in the WikiProject Geology namespace, but should be started by editors as user essays and would only become a WikiProject Geology essay after at least minimal response in the WikiProject's talk page accepting it as part of the WikiProject. I'll start the tally with my own response - see
WP:Discussion templates for more like the one I used. If you don't support the move, please state what changes the essay needs for that to be acceptable and to reach consensus on the move. Obviously this does not set the essay in concrete - normal wikimaintenance will continue under the umbrella of WikiProject Geology after the move.
Ikluft (
talk)
20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Calling attention to two category renaming discussions currently in progress: Category:Crater lakes to Category:Volcanic crater lakes at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_20#Category:Crater_lakes, and Category:Annular lakes to Category:Impact crater lakes at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_20#Category:Annular_lakes. Ikluft ( talk) 05:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
A review is requested of this draft on the forecast of this future supercontinent. Is the draft properly supported by reliable sources, and should it be accepted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Might someone be interested in looking at Darling Cinder Pit, apparently our only article about a cinder mine. Sources mention cinders, scoria and pumice but I'm not sure if there was just one type of stuff mined here or different materials for different purposes.---- Pontificalibus 15:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#March 2 under the title "Mineral species" with which members of this WikiProject may be able to help. Narky Blert ( talk) 04:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
there has been a request for a second opinion on Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1 that needs input. Note that I am the GA nominator of that article. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
? Happyhodgepodge ( talk) 23:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I often find myself wanting to cite geological maps published by the British Geological Survey, either the printed paper versions or else the scanned images of the same material available on-line these days on the BGS website but am often at a loss as to how best to cite them using the templates available (cite book, cite web, of course). Anyone else have concerns here? It will apply to maps produced in any nation and not just GB (and indeed in some respects to the citing of maps more widely). thanks Geopersona ( talk) 10:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to really expand and polish up this article. I believe it's better than a stub rating now (and its importance might be worth reassessing) but would like that determination done independently. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 19:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A weird stumpy little article. It feels like this material is better covered elsewhere and it might be better to merge it there. Anyone have any ideas? Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I created the article Telegraph Plateau but cannot work out how this somewhat archaic Victorian term fits in with modern terminology. I think it's connected with the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone but exactly how I couldn't say. For all I know, there may already be an article on the region this could be merged to as a history section. Can anyone help clear this up? Spinning Spark 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
So I was revisiting the Moppin Complex article, and found myself visiting the Complex (geology) article, which turns out to be a stubby little article lacking references, and found it redlinks Lithodemic unit. It looks like the Wikipedia stratigraphy articles have very little on lithodemic stratigraphy. So here's my question: Does lithodemic stratigraphy warrant its own article, or should it be introduced as a new section under Lithostratigraphy? I'm good either way but I think we need something coherent on this topic.
(I'd then fix the redlink in Complex (geology) to point to the article or section on lithodemic stratigraphy, then flesh out the Complex (geology) article, then finally pop my stack to Moppin Complex. Ars longa, vita brevis.) -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like an expert answer to a question, which is whether connemara marble is a true marble, unlike verd antique. It appears to me that it is a metamorphic rock made up of calcium carbonate, in which case it is marble, but "Dammit, Jim, I'm a chemist, not a geologist". Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
I assume that Template:Pleistocene Lakes and Seas is within the remit of this project. The template says that it is about "Pleistocene proglacial lakes and related seas" but a number of entries are about Pluvial lakes rather than glacial lakes. Would it make sense to split these off into their own template? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
After the promotion of Paleocene to FA, I thought it was worth discussing how to improve stage/age articles. I posted this here rather than at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Periods as that seems to be largely inactive. I think the most important things a stage/age article should include: History of definition, boundaries and subdivisions (Ammonite zones, Geochrons etc) and notable events if there are any. Many of the mesozoic stage/ages include long taxa tables containing dinosaurs, etc which I think are overly long and don't add much to the article, and should be removed, and perhaps replaced with a link to or a list of formations of that age. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad this issue has been brought up. I also have concerns about the recent effort by several editors (namely Draco ignoramus sophomoricus and GleisReis) to add extensive taxa lists to articles on geological stages. I believe that the age info for taxa are often sourced directly from the "temporal range" section of taxoboxes in other Wikipedia articles. The problem I see is that there is not much effort to confirm or clarify the dating of the taxa in question. Relating to some debates in Triassic biostratigraphy, if one paleontologist dates a fossil assemblage as Carnian based on conchostracans and another dates it to Norian based on magnetostratigraphy, should its taxa be on the Norian or Carnian page? Simply trusting Wikipedia to have accurate age ranges (often sourced simply from fossilworks or entirely unsourced) not only has the potential to be wrong, but is also circular reasoning in itself. I have several solutions in mind. One is to delete the taxon lists entirely, though I don't want to resort to this option since the editors mentioned above have spent a lot of time and effort in creating them. Another option is to give the lists their own articles. These articles will need to be properly sourced, maintained and refined constantly, but it would at least clean up clutter on the main pages of the geological units. Part of the solution may involve more emphasis on the geological formations used to justify the dating of the taxa. Some marine strata (and their corresponding taxa) can be safely assigned to a stage based on index fossils, but for terrestrial strata a nuanced discussion of potential age dating may be necessary. That's my main issue with the process of creating taxon lists: lack of nuance when linking taxa to a temporal stage. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm wandering through the orphaned articles and I came across biolith, which is a sad, sad little sub-stub. Should it be a standalone article, or should it be merged somewhere? Or is it outdated and in need of deletion? I tried some googling but didn't come up with much that seemed conclusive. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I just reviewed Mount Takahe, which is at FAC at the moment; neither I nor the other reviewer there has any background in geology. Since the FAC is short of reviews I thought I'd drop a note here to see if anyone is interested in taking a look at it from a subject-matter expert point of view. Also pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, the nominator and primary author, to let them know about this note. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
which looks like a bit of a car crash to my eyes. EdwardLane ( talk) 10:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)The magmas appear to have formed through fractional crystallization at varying pressures,[63] and ultimately came from the lithosphere at 80–90-kilometre (50–56 mi) depth,[64] that was affected by subduction processes[65] over 85 million years ago.[14]
"Glutenite" appears to be a regional geological term that is only used by Chinese geologists, both in reference to a specifc facies and as a type of reservoir. It's not an obscure term by any means, with around 4,200 hits on Google Scholar. However none of the papers that use the term that I've seen actually specifically defines it. This paper states that: "Glutenites, especially those block-like massive deposits in rift basins, consist of sandstones and conglomerates, commonly include alluvial fan, fan delta, nearshore subaqueous fan and sublacustrine fan." but this definition is still lacking, as it doesn't make sense of why Glutenite would be referenced as a specific facies as separate from sandstone and conglomerate. Does anyone have a more specific definition of the term? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I've managed to find some papers that contain thin sections and rock samples. To me it looks like a well cemented conglomerate with angular clasts. Given the evidence that has previously been presented, does anyone disagree with a Glutenite --> Conglomerate (geology) redirect?. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Curious whether there's any chance [ [1]] is in good faith. I suspect a marketing edit. Suggestions on how to deal with it? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added a welcome template and a short explanation as to why their edit was reverted on their user talk page. That should probably be enough for now. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Friends, please take a look at this article. I've taken a stab at bringing better coherence and completeness to it. Still needs some work, I think. Further discussion at the talk page. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
So I've run into a couple of articles that actually look quite good but are still rated Start-quality. My understanding is that any editor can change the rating to as high as B-class if warranted. Is that correct? Example: Conglomerate (geology) really looks better than Start class to me.-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello geology people! I'm actually here from Typo Team because Classification of silicate minerals ended up on the list of articles with detected typos since it had chemical formulas that weren't in templates. I was going through it to add Template:Chem2 around all the formulas, but then I found some that didn't match the July 2020 IMA master list and thought I should update them, but I know next to nothing about geology and only a little about chemistry. Anyway, I've been replacing the formulas with the ones listed on the master list and organizing it based on the New Dana Classification (using webmineral.com's list). Is there any reason I shouldn't update all the chemical formulas to the current ones? Are the websites I'm using accurate? And finally, what do I do about the minerals added since 1997 that don't have a place in the classification? If anyone else has a better idea about how to fix the article, I won't mess with it, but I'd be happy to fix it as long as my edits are making it better. Thank you! TuskDeer ( talk) 23:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
After I requested that this be added a few weeks ago, we now have a list of the 1,000 most viewed geology articles in the last month, the link is here. Unsuprisingly, Earth is #1, but I'm suprised that the Chelyabinsk meteor article is still getting over 1,000 views per day nearly 8 years later. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
A complex RfC is going on, after a long bout of edit war. Uninvolved editors needed at the discussion. Aditya( talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently has a (fairly decent; could use work) article on tuff, a (fairly decent; could use work) article on tephra, and an article on pyroclastic rock that I'm inclined to put some work into improving. I note, however, that Volcaniclastic is presently a redirect to Pyroclastic rock, which seems not quite right. As I understand it, having touched up my understanding from three or four textbooks just now, volcaniclastics is the broadest term, taking in any kind of rock composed predominantly of broken fragments of volcanic rock. (Fisher (1961) "Proposed clasification of volcaniclastic sediments and rocks. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 72, pp.1409-1414; cited by Fisher and Schmincke (1984), Pyroclastic Rocks) This would include everything from tuffs to cinder beds to debris flows, lahars, and fanglomerates whose provenance is a volcanic field. Pyroclastics are rock fragments produced directly by volcanic action and so would exclude many debris flows, lahars, and fanglomerates. Tuff is one form of consolidated pyroclastics; tephra is unconsolidated pyroclastics. This is pretty much how Fisher and Schmincke (1984) lay it out in their table on page 90.
Assuming that's the right hierarchy, it seems to me that volcaniclastics should be the "root" article for pyroclastic rock, tuff, and tephra, with tuff and tephra being subsets of pyroclastic rocks. That suggests the redirect of volcaniclastics to pyroclastics is not ideal. I'm thinking of breaking volcaniclastics out into its own article (I'm happy to do the work to give this a good start) and tweak the others to reflect the subsetting Volcaniclastics -> pyroclastics -> (tuff, tephra) just a bit better. But I thought I'd bounce that off y'all first to get your comments and suggestions. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I've got a Draft:Volcaniclastics article up and slowly coming into focus, and y'all are welcome to jump in and contribute before I move this over the existing redirect. Unsurprisingly, there are some slight differences in how different experts define the stuff. @ Mikenorton, I haven't looked at that chapter yet but will do so soon.-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone with subject knowledge have a look at List of supercontinents? A certain amount of at least recent editing seems to be speculative and/or fiction, but I can't easily tell how much. Thanks. —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A conversation has been started at WP:Palaeontology regarding the tables that have been added to Golden Valley Formation and others. Comments are welcomed-- Kev min § 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Nominated for good article status. The review came back with a long list of tweaks, and I'm headed out of town Monday. I'll do what I can before then, but would appreciate anything any of the rest of you can do to help. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I have attempted to expand this stub article and would like to request someone to reassess its rating. Brynnams ( talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Would someone kindly take a look at Morainic drift? It is a single lined, unsourced article which was edited (excluding maintenance edits) 14 years ago. Last maintenance, or any type of edit was eight years ago. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thanks everybody. See you guys around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I've put up a proposal to move Pluton to Igneous intrusion, for the reasons given on the talk page there. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 06:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif ( talk) 08:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The Hoodoo (geology) article is a quite well-written article that is the target of some 11 redirects for various synonyms, including Tent rock. The Mushroom rock article is a not-so-well-written article that is the target for three variations on the name. Looking these over, looking over the (not numerous) books I have on hand that discuss pediment rocks and their ilk, and looking through some of the papers pulled up from Google Scholar, it seems that hoodoos distinguished from mushroom rocks mostly in that hoodoos form from erosion of resistant beds over nonresistant beds, whereas mushroom rocks form from erosion of more or less uniformly resistant beds by possibly different processes. However, there's a lot of overlap of terms and with the term "pedestal rock."
I wanted to get some feel for how y'all understand the distinction between the two. The hoodoo article I'm disinclined to touch much; it's a good article and about all I'd add is a short paragraph explaining the distinction from mushroom rocks -- assuming there really is one. The mushroom rock article needs to either be merged with hoodoo (if they are not really distinct concepts) or needs to clearly spell out the distinction and focus narrowly on mushroom rocks and not hoodoos. My tentative take is that they are distinct enough concepts (as I've just defined them) to justify two articles, but I could easily be persuaded otherwise.
FWIW, Oxford Dictionary of Geology and Earth Sciences defines hoodoos, tent rocks, and pedestal rocks separately, redirects "mushroon rock" to "pedestal rock", and defines pedestal rocks as products of wind- or water-driven erosion of uniform rock; tent rocks as products of erosion of resistant beds over soft beds; and hoodoos nearly the same as tent rocks. Not that ODGES is the last word, but just to illustrate the confusion I'm seeing here. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 04:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
is there anyone interested in commenting/reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2? After five weeks it has only two comments with explicit support/oppose. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Cretaceous is currently the most viewed Geological period article, getting around 1,400 views per day. There is currently an effort by WP:PALAEO to get Cretaceous to be the second featured geological period article after Paleocene. Obviously most of the Palaeontology-minded editors have no expertise in the Geology. In comparison to the equivalent section on the Paleocene article, the section is quite lacking, and some assistance to help get the section into shape would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently salt flat redirects to a disambiguation page. However, the two main topics are salt pan and dry lake, which do not seem to be distinct concepts (or maybe salt flats are a kind of dry lake?), and the articles use many of the same examples. Can these articles be merged or at least clarified as to what the distinction is? Can salt flat redirect to salt pan instead of a disambiguation page? I do not have the background in this area to be confident what the right approach is here. Somatochlora ( talk) 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added a lot of information to the stub class article Biogenic Substance, and was wondering if I could please have a reassessment of its rating? Thank you -- Wikiuser553 ( talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
We could use some help building this short article. Bearian ( talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A few months ago I tried to expand the Template:Geological period to the epochs, and failed miserably, chiefly because there was little point in replacing the templates that were already there. However, I really do not like the ununified look of the geological timescale pages' templates in the top right-hand corner (example: Tonian vs. Paleocene). I wish to replace the existing template on all of these pages with an infobox-style template that would contain information such as:
-image (map) -image (life forms/reconstruction of how the time period looked) -classification (period, epoch, era, stage/age, eon) -upper bound defined by (is there a fossil or geological process that suddenly appears or disappears at this boundary? is it radiometrically defined (i.e the Orosirian)?) -upper bound age (how old the upper boundary is) -lower bound defined by -lower bound age -next period (what comes after the division of time being discussed?) -previous period -usage (regional? international? outdated? proposed? etc) -coined by (who first used the term?) -ratification date (for internationally recognized divisions of time as recognized by the international commission on stratigraphy OR by regional or governmental agencies, if and where applicable) -timeline? (example: Template:Silurian graphical timeline) -contained subdivisions (is the article subject about a period with epoch subdivisions? what are they?)
Using such a template would not only create a more unified look for these pages, but it would also encourage more information to be added that often times is not included on the pages in question (most subdivisions of the Cambrian, for example, don't have most of the info I've listed above anywhere on them) or that is hard to find on some pages. Benniboi01 ( talk) 04:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I would really like to see the subdivisions displayed as they presently are in geologic time period articles, with a vertical timeline with links. Would it be possible to do this with these templates? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Benniboi01: If you want images to display a certain way in an infobox, take a look at Module:InfoboxImage. For a simple example of using that module, take a look at Template:Infobox ecoregion. The empty infobox looks a little odd, with some overlapping items --- I can help debug when you've settled the code a bit. — hike395 ( talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! I'd just make the "First proposer" with a small letter, not capital. Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
|lowergsspacceptdate=
hard to read and type. Thanks! —
hike395 (
talk)
14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Benniboi01: Can I suggest
Template:Infobox geological timespan or
Template:Infobox geologic timespan ? Time implies one point in time, while timespan implies an interval. Or maybe
Template:Infobox geologic interval? —
hike395 (
talk)
22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Whichever we decide, note you should put it into the tracking category in the code that I added at the bottom to check parameters. — hike395 ( talk) 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I have created Native state (metallurgy) and Talk:Native state (metallurgy) (do look at my comment on the talk page). It is a stub article. It is also an orphan except from a hatnote link. I don't know which other articles should link to it, so there's a task for those who do know. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The article Petrogenetic grid mentions " Carpolite", which links to a disambiguation page. Neither of the two entries on that disambiguation page make sense in the context of the article, I think. It seems that this carpolite is supposed to be a (type of) mineral, but I can't find anything about this online. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks! Lennart97 ( talk) 16:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I've posted this at the Caves WikiProject too: I see that we have now entered International Year of Caves and Karst, a collaborative initiative involving a host of interested parties - is there any interest on any group or individual's part on Wikipedia to play a role by improving coverage of these topics during 2021? cheers Geopersona ( talk) 11:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been working over the Limestone article, and had occasion to mention Bowen's decarbonization series, which describes the sequence of distinctive minerals that form during increasingly intense metamorphism of carbonate rock. I am reluctant to place a full discussion of this in Limestone since that article is now already rather lengthy and it's tangential. (I mention it there in a brief paragraph distinguishing dense limestone described as "marble" from true marble.) Alternatives I see are: Put it in the Marble article; add it as a subsection in Bowen's reaction series; or make it its own stub article. Any preferences? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Ciolo (Apulia)#Geology states Ciolo is mostly formed by a
basal portion[disambiguation needed], wich includes limestones and bioclastic limestones...
, where 'basal portion' simply links to the disambiguation page
basal. What does this "basal portion" mean (if it means anything at all)?
Lennart97 (
talk)
16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't seem to stop dropping grenades. Blame it on the COVID keeping me at home with time on my hands to fuss over Wikipedia.
Some time back I worked over the Lava article, making sure everything was properly sourced and expanding some on the chemical and physical range of properties of lavas. I'm now looking at Magma. To give some perspective, the article TOC for Lava is:
1 Properties of lava 1.1 Composition 1.2 Rheology 1.3 Thermal 2 Lava morphology 3 Lava landforms 4 Lava fountains 5 Hazards 6 Towns destroyed by lava flows 7 Towns damaged by lava flows 8 Towns destroyed by tephra
while that for Magma is
1 Physical and chemical properties of magma 1.1 Temperature 1.2 Density 1.3 Composition 2 Origins of magma by partial melting 3 Evolution of magmas 4 Migration and solidification of magmas 5 Magma usage for energy production
I've simplified these a bit. The relevant point is that most of each article is unique to that article, and the division between articles makes a lot of sense -- but the sections on properties of lava/magma are almost a complete overlap. It would be nice to find an elegant way to only have to write this information once, but off-hand I don't know what the best approach would be.
I do notice that almost everything in Lava that does not overlap would apply as well to Lava flow -- the latter is currently a redirect to Lava. If we moved Lava to Lava flow, the properties section of Lava flow could be reduced to little more than "Lava is magma that has reached the surface and degassed" with either a Main or See Also pointing the reader to the Magma article (or the Properties section of Magma). Another possibility may be to use template:Excerpt to pull that section from Magma directly into Lava, but I haven't any experience with that.
Would appreciate your thoughts. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Geology of the Death Valley area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene ( talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
I hope I have not been too presumptuous in removing your project from the talk page of the article. If this is wrong please could you explain on /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/archive1 how I can improve the article re geology. For example if you are aware of future expansion of Batı Raman oil field. Chidgk1 ( talk) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Mount St. Helens for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I've recently created the article Springstone. Sources differ as to whether this is a form of chlorite or serpentinite mineral. I've gone with chlorite, since the sources giving this include print works, not just auction sites, and because other sources describe areas which have deposits of both springstone and serpentinite, suggesting the two are distinct. However, I'd greatly appreciate input from editors with expertise in this field who can help ensure to get this right. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about this article and about references to this theory being inserted into a large number of other geology articles, mostly by @ Feline Hymnic:. It has a lot of the red flags I associate with crank theories, but I also see that Foulger is referenced in Philpotts and Ague (though only as a bare mention that the plume theory is not undisputed.) How much of a real debate is there? Is this a legitimate minority view or is it fringe? As one who is only an amateur geologist (albeit with a Ph.D. in a sister field) I'm not confident I have a good feel for this. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That's all very hand-wavy and imperfect. But might it be a starter for consideration ? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 20:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's unhealthy to divide theories that are in tension -- a reader would have to read two articles to get a balanced view, and each article may drift towards the POV of the strongest proponents of the theory. I thus propose merging Mantle plume and Plate theory (volcanism) into one article. Perhaps the merged article should be titled Causes of volcanism ? — hike395 ( talk) 02:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Since this looks suspiciously like consensus, I've created Draft:Intraplate volcanism and done the bare bones cut and paste of both articles. We can all work on integrating the material. If the result looks good, we can then move this to article space and change the old pages to redirects. There may be some formalities required (such as a formal merge request on both old pages to the new one) but we can worry about that when the time comes. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The creator of the Plate Theory (volcanism) article SphericalSong has rewritten around a dozen hotspot related articles, attempting to promote the "plate theory" and cast doubt on the mantle plumes, see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Many of which cite "MantlePlumes.org" and Foulgers book. I am concerned that these edits do not conform to the neutral point of view and our WP:FRINGE policy on minority viewpoints. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a oft-discussed theory that mantle plumes form when, or are influenced by, downgoing slabs from subduction zones sink into the mantle and stir/melt in the lower mantle and core-mantle boundary zone. That is definitively a mainstream viewpoint but it's not the same thing as the "plate theory" discussed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
A major problem is the actual framing of the debate. There is a perceived presentation as an "either/or" of all the phenomena being described: "mantle plumes describe everything" or "plate theory describes everything". In some geographic locations (some seamount chains spring to mind) there seems to be exceptionally good evidence for mantle plumes. But it also looks as though "plate theory" might be a plausible, possibly more appropriate, explanation at other locations (let's say Iceland or Yellowstone, although I'm open to correction on those choices). It might be helpful if we could de-couple the "either/or, applying to all instances" aspect. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 13:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
A new sidebar - {{ Geology sidebar}} - has been created by User:Bluealbion and has been added to several articles. Leaving aside issues such as the spelling of tectonics, the redlink, what is included and what left out and how it is organised, is it a useful addition? Mikenorton ( talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We already have a a footer {{ Geology}}. Such footers are ideal for top-down navigation of a broad topic, while also avoiding the "in your face" nature of sidebars. Given that we have the footer, what additional benefit does a similar, indeed potentially near-equivalent, sidebar bring? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have massively expanded the Jurassic article since December, so I've nominated it for peer review. If you have any comments, please send them to Wikipedia:Peer review/Jurassic/archive1. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello all,
I've tried to clean up the First appearance datum article a little, just so it seems clearer and has some references to back the content up. I'd appreciate any input you all might have as to what could be added or changed. In particular, I'm not sure if information about the related concept Last appearance datum can also be included in this article. Or, similarly, if I can link to List of index fossils, which seems like another similar concept--I'm just not sure if it is relevant or helpful to link to it from the First appearance datum page. Would be glad to hear any of your thoughts about this. Thanks, RVSNS ( talk) 21:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Pangaea is one of our most viewed articles, receiving nearly 1 million views last year. (For a comprehensive list of the top 1000, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Popular pages). There are large amounts of uncited text. The problem with writing about Pangea, as I've learned with Jurassic, is that it covers such a large span of time that it feels difficult to know what to write about, and the need to cover the topic comprehensively but succinctly. The article should cover the asssembly and collapse of Pangea from a geological perspective, but I don't know how much technical detail should be included, given the likely lay audience. I think Kent G. Budge has done excellent work on the life section, but I wonder if a more comprehensive treatment would be better. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Aaaand ... here's the first map. Crude enough to not infringe copyright, but a reasonable representation of Torsvik and Cock's reconstruction. Tell me what you think before I make the effort to generate more. Incidentally, Torsvik has a software package downloadable from his web site at Cambridge for producing globe maps. Alas, I could not get it to work on my Ubuntu system -- it had a slew of package dependencies that no one site could all resolve and I finally gave up in frustration. Also not sure if the format is really what is needed or if you can actually make PNGs from it. Or what licensing terms would apply.
If this seems okay, then I plan for subsequent maps to show orogenies as red zones. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Otherwise I think it's pretty good. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Are Rügen White Chalk Formation and Rugen Formation the same thing? The articles are uniformly uninformative and identical (a geologic formation from the Cretaceous in Germany). The references are not usable, since they reference the front page of a website instead of a specific webpage containing information. They were created by the same user at the same point in time. They both appear on List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Germany -- 67.70.27.105 ( talk) 15:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Requested move 7 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:
There is a discussion of how and whether to modify {{ Life timeline}} (a graphical timeline that shows the history of life over the last 4500 Ma) to obey the accessibility guideline to avoid small fonts. You're welcome to join in the discussion here. — hike395 ( talk) 06:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The question is fairly simple and straightforward: while attempting to improve the article on Dashrath Manjhi we are trying to identify the type of rock formation that Gehlaur Ganj ( side view) is. Is it a Horst, is it a stretch of lava that filled the crack in the crust and then solidified (somewhat reminiscing Castle Rock (Edinburgh)), or is it something else (and what is the scientific name for it)? Any clarification on the matter would be highly appreciated! -- Wesha ( talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
2008 Sichuan earthquake, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Stepped profile has been unsourced for some years- and the term definitely exists in context of rivers as mentioned in the article from some brief Googling.
The weird thing is that all the articles linking to it are about architecture or mountains- not about rivers/water-bodies. Should I find another target for those articles and add the river-based sources to this one? Or is there a similar article about steps in nature/design/engineering this could merge or be improved by? I feel like the term "stepped profile" might be too multi-disciplinary (math, geology, etc.) that I'm struggling to figure out just how to fulfil basic notability! Help? Estheim ( talk) 22:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mikenorton, Paul H., DanHobley; I went ahead with the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stepped profile. The incoming WL discreps and vagueness make me feel this article serves no good to any reader. Estheim ( talk) 09:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I have been making edits to this article Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact as part of an University assignment. My objective is to improve this article from its status as a stub, and also improve its assessment rating on this WIkiproject. This article primarily discusses a proposed impact structure in the middle of Australia, and the evidence for this theory. The theory was coined and popularised by Daniel Connelly.
I would like this article to be reviewed and rated by members of this Wikiproject.
I have also posted this article on [ Australia]. Thanks JeffreyYin333 ( talk)
I have just been going through Category:Possible impact craters on Earth. There are some iffy ones like Middle-Urals Ring Structure, which appear to have passing mentions in the academic literature. I found three that I couldn't find any non-conference abstract sourcing for, Fried Egg structure, Gatun structure and Guarda Crater. As such I have nominated them for deletion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Syneclise appears to be a former-Soviet geological term used to refer to some types of sedimentary basin. Would this be better treated as part of the sedimentary basin article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Complex volcano and Volcanic group are two list-like articles. I'm struggling to see the difference. Each article acknowledges the other in the See also section, but the leads really muddy the distinction with the alt names that completely overlap. Unless there really is a clear difference (note that the latter has no sources), shouldn't they be merged. MB 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is prompted by the meteor impact discussion. Obviously we follow general WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, but perhaps it would be useful to flesh out some specifics for geology articles? For example, we had a discussion many months back where the idea was floated, and not particularly challenged, that stratigraphic units of formation rank or above were presumptively notable. (I'd add the qualifier that there have to be multiple independent reliable sources that treat the unit as a formation.) We're having a discussion now emphasizing the need for multiple independent reliable sources for impact events, which is unsurprising considering this is exactly the kind of topic that attracts the fringe. Would there be any value in having a permanent section in the geology project emphasizing WP:NOTABILITY and particularly spelling out how it applies to certain geology topics? If so, are there any other geology topics that inherently are prone to this kind of thing? (I'm looking at some of my own formation articles on New Mexico formations, FWIW.) I'd exclude taxonomic articles from this discussion, since that's more of a WP:Paleontology issue and they seem to have a robust understanding of when a taxon is notable. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Page is up. Feel free to tweak. One question for the group: My impression is that mindat.org, much as I like the site, is largely user-generated and therefore not a reliable source, notwithstanding it is used in the great majority of mineral articles. Am I harshing too much on the site? Should something be said about it in the notability/reliability/due weight page? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 03:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Recently a user named Aleral Wei added a note to the Guarapuava-Tamarana Sarusas eruption. The note said that the eruption might be effusive. I looked at the reference, I saw that there were high amounts of effusive eruptive activity, but no mention of Guarapuava - Tamarana Sarusas. Also, the igneous province where the eruption occurred ( The Parana-Etendaka traps ) has some rheoignimbrite, meaning some eruptions were explosive. What are your thoughts? Thank you. The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 02:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I actually saw the fact that lava fountaining took place. Did ash columns occur but rarely? The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 04:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been working on a draft overhauling the stratigraphy section of the Carboniferous article over at User:Hemiauchenia/sandboxCarboniferous. The main issue with the Carboniferous is that most regions of the world have their own separate local stratigraphic schemes, which are still in widespread use. Would it be worth creating some kind of diagram or template showing the correlation of the local schemes with the ICS one, like this one? We already have Template:Carboniferous European subdivisions, but that only shows the European scheme. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
"List of minerals of Pakistan" strikes me as an unnecessary list, particularly since there is no such list for any other geographical area. Thoughts? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 22:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know what "stone stripping" related to periglaciation is? I came across this phrase in a source but couldn't find a definition or a WP article for it. Volcano guy 17:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
This article has me scratching my head for a couple of reasons. What's the scope of the article, the glacial landform, or the French term? And is it a "vital" article, or a "low-importance" one -- or somehow both? Thanks in advance for any assistance, ideally in the form of comments at, or edits in, the article in question. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 08:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Is this a notable fringe theory? It seems to unduly promote the hypothesis. Large amounts of text are uncited. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This deletion discussion needs attention from someone with experience in mineralogy to help decide whether this material should have its own article. Please help. -- ΟΥΤΙΣ ( talk) 05:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
"Neuburger Kieselerde; English: Neuburg Siliceous Earth (Göske and Kachler 2008): Informal term, currently applied for the unconsolidated, fine-grained, carbonate-free, predominantly siliceous sediment of the Neuburg Kieselerde Member, which is mined for industrial applications."
Thanks for your contributions here, now we are really having a good talk about what we can find about this in often-used scientific sources.
I like the idea to have an article about the Wellheim Formation that mentions the Neuburg deposit as a member and also has something about its commercial exploitation.
So let's give up
Draft:Siliceous earth for the time being.
I was bold and created
Draft:Wellheim Formation, transferring the relevant content and sources we already had in the other draft.
Please have a look and state your opinions. Also don't be hesistant to edit if you think you can improve what we already have there. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
14:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you think that we can use
Sealife, 2013 to get a source for the current "other sources assert a biogenic origin for the material" statement?
It's a long article, but freely available to read online or as a PDF. I'm planning on reading it within the next days. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
06:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, ok sorry: It's in the first sentence of their abstract. I'll just cite the abstract. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
07:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
And.... it's
an article! *pops a champagne bottle*
Thanks for all your support and contributions in this successful attempt to avoid
WP:PROMO. I feel the current text is quite good at aiming for a neutral point of view, mentioning the producer's claims but putting them into the context of mainstream research. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 who closed the
AfD debate for
Neuburg siliceous earth said on their talk page that it would be ok if I ask here for a volunteer to do the merge with
Wellheim Formation.
I'm sorry, I don't feel that it would be the right thing for me to do it myself, under the current circumstances. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
10:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for doing the move,
Hemiauchenia.
I don't want to go on your nerves too much, but now I need help with accessing a pay-walled source. Please see my explanation on the
talk page. --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
05:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Another thing remains to be decided to wrap up the consequences of the deletion of
Neuburg siliceous earth:
What about
Draft:Siliceous earth now?
My current feeling is that it should rather be deleted: Even looking at this very section's discussion, there were several different opinions about an exact definition and the common-ness of its scientific use.
Do you think it is possible to get a consensus about what a possible article Siliceous earth should say about its scientific definition? And would it be worth the effort to try and write it, given that it isn't really in scientific use anymore, in my (rather un-studied) opinion? --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk)
14:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Geology of the Bryce Canyon area for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 07:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please join Talk:Fissure (disambiguation)#Primary topic of whether Fissure related to anatomy is really a primary topic. Editors here probably would agree it is not since Fissure pertains to geology as prominently if not moreso. Coastside ( talk) 21:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.-- Kev min § 01:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The Rhyolite article seems to me to be within striking distance of a GA nomination, if that kind of thing matters to you. Good article status does offer the opportunity to link the article in the daily "Did you know?" section. Would appreciate any comments on what more is needed. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I discovered several paragraphs of flagrant copyright violation (word for word copies of Stern 2005) at Oceanic trench. I've cut everything I could find that was copied from that source and asked for a reversion delete, but would appreciate other eyeballs looking for copyvios by the same editor of possibly different sources ( User:Zyzzy, who apparently racked up quite a history before dropping from the scene in late 2005). Meanwhile, the article is badly cut up and bleeding, and probably needs some significant rewriting. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 00:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)