![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Meekororum is edit warring regarding the age of the Shaximiao Formation. The dating of this formation has long been contentious, due to the fact that it is a continental deposit without any volcanic beds that could provide easily interpretable zircon dates, though it is widely agreed to be Middle-Upper Jurassic in age. Instead authors have been relying on detrital zircon dating, where zircon grains are sifted from sedimentary beds, and the youngest zircon ages are taken as a proxy for the age of the beds. A recent detrital Zircon study has found the age of the formation to be entirely Upper Jurassic in age [1] however, a unpublished preprint regarding a newly found tuff bed has found the formation to be Middle Jurassic in age again [2]. Meekoroum is insisting that the formation should be listed in wikivoice as solely Upper Jurassic in age, based on the 2018 study. I don't think we should treat single papers as established information when the age of the formation appears to still be contentious in the literature. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I too am conservative both with respect to single paper sourcing and with respect to preprints. An encyclopedia can afford to wait for some consensus, and get-by by mentioning the variations in the text. I see nothing wrong in mentioning preprint data so long as it is not treated as gospel. So on that basis, I support meekororum's "middle-late Jurassic" solution. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Note: I already posted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology, but User:Hemiauchenia referred me here.
Just letting you know that the dinosaur-bearing Serra da Galga and Ponte Alta members of the Marília Formation were recently split off into the Serra da Galga Formation, leaving Kurupi itaata as the only fossil taxon from the redefined Marília Formation. I have proposed a split on the Marília's talk page. Your help is appreciated. Miracusaurs ( talk) 01:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.
WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.
We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo, infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, a mass deletion of redirects to the list article List of geological features on Venus has been proposed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 08:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Has been listed for deletion.
Dawnseeker2000 06:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Volcanic ash 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. Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Retreat of glaciers since 1850 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 ( talk) 10:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As part of the reforms to geological period infoboxes a parameter for Atmospheric Oxygen Concentration was added. My main concern here is that there is essentially no consensus at all in the literature about the actual values of prehistoric atmospheric oxygen concentration levels. Figure 2 of the recent paper Atmospheric oxygen of the Paleozoic is illustrative of how wide the variance in recent studies actually is. The paper deploys a new technique for estimating atmospheric oxygen concentrations from air bubbles trapped in halite, but I see no widespread consensus yet in the literature for the reliability of this method over other proxies. I think that all "atmospheric oxygen concentration" values in geologic system/period infoboxes should be removed for now. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Geothermal energy has been nominated for an individual 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. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Australia (continent)#Definition of the continent which may be of interest to members. BilCat ( talk) 01:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Giant current ripples ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) figured I'd let the people here know I'm taking a hedge clipper to this abomination, which appears to have existed in close to its current form since at least 2012. The sources are exclusively in russian, which makes it even harder to make sense of, which is likely part of why it's lasted so long. If some of you guys who are more familiar with the subject area could take a look and see if what's left makes any sense at all, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, a number of templates for periods (including some that I created) have been listed for deletion. I believe they have something to do with WP:GEOL but I don't recall what they were for, or if they have been deprecated. Input would be appreciated, thanks. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a member of Project Geology, so please forgive any protocol error or trespass by asking a question here is that is not appropriate.
I started Uranium mining in the Bancroft area which, of course, incudes a lot of geology content. I'm somewhat new here and realized in the process of this that I've relied too much on quotations. And yet, I'm not skilled to summarize the geology quotations that the article relies upon, instead I quoted the Geological Survey of Canada at length. As a very new article, it's on the path to be featured as Did You Know, and the people who run that process encouraged me to fix the overuse of quotations. (more background about that is here, in case anyone is interested: /info/en/?search=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area )
In case anyone was interested to help summarize the longer quotations, it would be helpful. CT55555 ( talk) 13:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello geology folks! This is not my area of expertise, but I wanted to draw your attention to a list of articles all recently created by the same editor:
I genuinely can't tell if these are meaningful articles, or if they are WP:SYNTH or WP:OR - they have references, but it's been pointed out at the AfD discussion above that at least in that case, the references don't necessarily support the text. They have few incoming links, although that's perhaps to be expected for new articles. It might be worth someone with subject matter expertise having a gander, and possibly offering their thoughts on the existing AfD. Cheers! PianoDan ( talk) 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This was a leftover from the fringe impact crater cleanup. I can't find substantial sourcing for the Middle-Urals Ring Structure impact claims, which have only been mentioned by two authors, the first of which was entirely in conference abstracts, and the other authors mentions are fairly brief. As such I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-Urals Ring Structure. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Only the subject of a single 2017 paper that has received zero citations, but some contemporary Indian news coverage.
Supposed crater off the West Coast of India that has been claimed to have formed contemperaneuously to Chicxulub and to have been involved in the K-Pg extinction. It's certainly been mentioned a few dozen times in the literature, almost entirely uncritically, but is almost completely ignored in discussions of the K-Pg extinction. I don't see any critical secondary coverage that could be used to write a good article about it.
A lake in Iraq claimed by some archaeologists to have been created by an impact responsible for disaster in the Near East around 2200 BC. No onsite work has actually been done to prove these claims. Only critical paper claims that the lake actually exists due to subsidence of basement fault blocks. I've taken somewhat of an axe to this already, but it could use some less credulous writing of the disaster claims.
Discredited impact crater claims from Spain. There appears to have been a controversy when the claims were delisted from the Earth Impact Database. I think the controversy is likely notable, but the articles currently lend undue weight towards the impact hypotheses. Both articles were made by the same, long inactive SPA, Decubridor (Spanish for "discoverer"). For both claims there appears to be a group of researchers who self-publish work promoting the impact hypotheses (see [3], and it is possible that both articles were initially created by one of them. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think for citing whether impact claims are considered "confirmed", we should rely on the EID, who are the most authoritative and selective source. I am concerned by the use of The Complete Catalog of the Earth's Impact structures by Anna Mikheeva, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences as the main authority on the likihood of impact claims in the List of possible impact structures on Earth. She doesn't appear to have any academic authority in this area, and there are no clear criteria for why she gives the ratings she does for particular claims. I am also concerned about the Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures], which is also associated with the RAS. This list also seems iffy and non-authoritative compared to the EID. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
References
User:Clay1965 has been adding IMA mineral name abbreviations to mineral articles in two places in each article: (1) unexplained in the name field of the infobox and (2) in parentheses immediately following the mineral name in the first sentence of the article; see, for example, Anorthite: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anorthite&oldid=1055555462 . User:Vsmith has then, without explanation, been removing the abbreviations from the infobox; see, for example, Anorthite: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anorthite&oldid=1055568689 . Assuming that User:Clay1965 intends to add abbreviations to all 5000+ mineral articles, it would be a large-volume, project-wide change. I suggest that editing should be paused and discussion started here about this topic, in the hope that consensus may emerge about the best way to present the IMA name abbreviation in any mineral article.
I do not like the IMA name abbreviation appearing in parentheses, immediately after the mineral name, in the first sentence of the article. It is a minor piece of information. I also do not like the abbreviation appearing (unexplained) after the name in the infobox. My preference is for the abbreviation to be mentioned only once, in a sentence of its own, somewhere lower down in the main body of the article. — GeoWriter ( talk) 21:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I will stop adding the abbreviations until there is an agreement. To me it was logical to add the symbol after the name, in conformity with the format used for the symbols of chemical elements. e.g. /info/en/?search=Gold Gold is also an metallic element that occurs as a mineral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay1965 ( talk • contribs) 07:19, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
As a second point, I am currently preparing a minerals symbol pages where all IMA symbols are listed. I was then intending to link the "IMA symbol" back to this page when published rather than to the IMA page. Advice would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay1965 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to add the definition after the appearance of the name in the main text to maintain general conformity with the way abbreviations are defined, e.g. as for the chemical elements) and to remove the abbreviation from the mineral box. I would prefer this, as many minerals do not yet have an information box. This is essentially the suggesion used by User:Vsmith for Anorthite: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anorthite&oldid=1055568689. Once released, I will then link the IMA symbol to the new IMA symbols page where all explanations will be given. Would this be acceptable? Clay1965 ( talk) 12:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC) comment added by Clay1965 ( talk • contribs) 08:08, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
I removed the IMA abbreviation from the infobox as unexplained clutter and added a link to the IMA abbreviation in the text of the articles. The addition of an unlinked IMA symbol seemed rather absurd as it seems a technical term which would be meaningless to most readers. If it is to be included in the infobox, it needs its own "line" with link to IMA. Vsmith ( talk) 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not know how to add a new line to the infobox template. Mindat places the symbol after the classification line- so it this would probably be the best location for it. Can anybody help introdue this to the template? Clay1965 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I will try and set it up as suggested. I would, however, suggest we use the term "IMA symbol" in accordance with the new IMA-CNMNC terminology used in their newsletters and in recent publications. I am also preparing page called "Mineral symbols", which I have been waiting a few months for it to be approved. Would be great if you could take a look at it. 78.55.180.79 ( talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have a handful of articles on individual marine isotope stages (More specifically Marine Isotope Stage 5, Marine Isotope Stage 11, Marine Isotope Stage 13 and Marine Isotope Stage 9), as well as several redirects like Marine Isotope Stage 16 (which goes to Don Glaciation) and Marine Isotope Stage 12 (which redirects to Anglian stage). Having articles on a seemlingly random four isotope stages when there are over 20 of them in total feels somewhat haphazard. Is there a better, more systematic way to treat this material? The redirects also seem somewhat inappropriate (redirecting from a global stage to regional stratigraphy), would these be better redirected to the main MIS article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've recently come across the article called Camadas de Guimarota, which I believe to be the old Portuguese name for the Alcobaça Formation, which is a separate article. I've proposed a merger on the Alcobaça's talk page. Your help is appreciated. Miracusaurs ( talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the periodic table in the lede of the periodic table article have 18-columns or 32?
The rfc is here.
I thought I'd ask given the involvement, for example, of quite a few of the elements in biogeochemical cycles.
Sandbh ( talk) 22:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I have opened a Featured Article Review for Chicxulub crater, feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chicxulub crater/archive1. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.
Thank you. Sandbh ( talk) 07:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Oil shale 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 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
We have a Stratum page that seems problematic. First, it is almost entirely unsourced, with just a single link to a Britannica article on stratification. Second, it is full of statements like "The "stratum" is the fundamental unit in a stratigraphic column" which suggest that "stratum" is being confounded here with "formation". The article as a whole seems redundant with Stratigraphy. Third, "stratum" has a bazillion other meanings across the sciences, as you can see if you type "Stratum" into the search box.
I'm wondering if this page should be converted into a disambiguation page for all those bazillions of meanings, and anything in the page that is not already in the Stratigraphy page should be moved there. Not trying to kick over any more hornets' nests this morning, but the page bugs me. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, from poking around some more it looks like "bed" and "lamination" are generally used as descriptions of the thickness of a stratum. I'll start a merger proposal on Stratum so we can continue the discussion there get more input. CrunchyRocks ( talk) 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I've decided that, in light of my horribly bad ignorance of geological science, I'm not really in a position to offer a useful opinion on the right thing to do. But I still find the Stratum article problematic. Please, just somebody do something useful with this article. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 23:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The Merger Proposal for Talk:Stratum article was incorrectly closed. As a result comments continued to be added to it despite it being offically closed. Although I have looked at it and the Wikipedia page for merging articles, I cannot figure out how to closed it properly.
Could someone better acquainted with article merger proposals properly close this merger proposal as I plan to work on Bed (geology). Paul H. ( talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Geology of the Lassen volcanic 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. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed two nearly identical redirect pages that each point to different articles:
Tectonic plates → List of tectonic plates
Tectonic Plates → Plate tectonics
Only one of these should be kept as "Tectonic plates" and the other should either be renamed or removed, the main issue is which one gets to stay. I can see the argument for keeping either so any input would be appreciated.
CrunchyRocks ( talk) 05:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A question of notability and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Below is an useful recording of a webinar that explains the use of the North American Stratigraphic Code. It discusses in detail the proper usage of terminology as required by the North American Stratigraphic Code.
Geologic Names and Usage: A Guide to Stratigraphic Nomenclature American Geosciences Institute, webinar, March 4, 2022
Geologic Names and Usage: A Guide to Stratigraphic Nomenclature, the Youtube version of above video.
For Canada, there is Lexicon of Canadian Geological Names on-line.
And for Mexico, there is Léxico Estratigráfico de México.
Not for Wikipedia, but for people interested in geology, other videos are available from American Geosciences Institute's YouTube channel. Paul H. ( talk) 04:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello all. I came across this article in a pretty sad state. It had but a single source, from Google Sites (eugh).
Considering how it's probably the quintessential singular "thing" in geology - you can't study rocks much if you're not breaking them - I think it's important to bring this article up to modern standards.
Most of it was written before 2015 and just needs a general cleanup.
I've found two decent sources, but am struggling to find more to finish off the article and clean it up. Help would be appreciated! DiamondIIIXX ( talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Geology! I've been running through stub articles in Canada's Northwest Territories today, and encountered Manuel Creek Formation and Manual Creek Formation - separate articles, but they look like they might refer to the same thing. I also checked List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in the Northwest Territories, where the Manuel Creek Formation is listed but not "Manual". Please confirm that Manual Creek Formation is an error, and let me know? Thanks very much, PK T(alk) 19:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I have been making use of GEOLEX as a rapid first-pass to establishing notability and correct names for U.S. geologic units. I now read in the policy that "such lists and databases should not be directly cited in Wikipedia articles".
Frankly, I don't see a problem with starting out a page with citation of authoritative tertiary sources such as GEOLEX, especially for identifying date and origin of type name and location, but it should be seen that in fleshing out these pages that I range far beyond the sources that GEOLEX lists. That is, I generally look elsewhere for information on units.
I guess I would look for permission of such use in updated wording of the policy.
I also quibble with the statement that "GEOLEX links the most notable peer-reviewed publications on each stratigraphic unit in its database". In general, the "significant publications" pages start with the original name classification paper, but my impression is that the listed publications are usually rather dated. For example, there has been revolution on the Dakota and the Western Interior Seaway since 2000, but GEOLX hasn't kept up, and it does not seem to track the apparent broad abandonment of the Colorado Group.
IveGoneAway ( talk)
In Grand Canyon region, I noticed that for there is an article for both the Supai Group and Supai Formation. The latter article is still a stub. Should the Supai Formation article be merged with the Supai Group article and converted into a redirect before someone expends more effort on it? Paul H. ( talk) 19:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
A link to commercial and fringe web site, Properties of Crystals, is being added to the Wikipedia articles of different gemstones. These include Gemstone, Amethyst, and Rhodonite. Sometimes, it is a standalone link under "Reference" and in other cases, it is associated with some poorly written text. What should be done about these edits? Paul H. ( talk) 02:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I need someone to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratch hardness and determine the notability of this term, as well as the other two non-Mohs scales being compared to the Mohs scale in this article. I was unable to find anything at all to suggest that either scale, Wooddall's or Ridgway's, are notable or worth comparing to Mohs. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
An informed opinion on this one would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opglabbeek Formation Thanks, Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, flabber my gast. I just tried looking up Crystal form; it took me to Crystal and I discovered that that article does not actually discuss forms, using the word only in the colloquial sense. Likewise, Crystal structure does not have any mention of crystal forms except in the colloquial sense. Neither does Crystallography. I'll try to gin up a short article or a section of a article (the logical place is probably Crystallography), unless one of you knows where a discussion of crystal forms is hidden away somewhere in the Wiki that we can re-redirect to.
If one of you is inclined to fix this, go right ahead -- I am presently up to my ears putting together a book manuscript and this is restricting my editing time on Wikipedia severely.
-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
What makes a rock-stratigraphic unit, i.e.formation, group, member, "notable" in terms of deserving of a wikipedia article? Paul H. ( talk) 00:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
You know, how much backing does Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability does actually have when it's marked as "essay"? The current "policy" (rather: "guideline") of notability that applies here is actually Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of woking on the Kettle Point Shale article. While reading through and taking notes, I found that "Kettle Point Formation" is the preferred usage over "Kettle Point Shale" in forma publications including the DNAG volume (GSA), Canadian Geological Survey reports, and a Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology paper. I cannot find it in Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units. How can I find which is the official usage? If the Kettle Point Formation is the preferred usage, I am tempted to move the page "Kettle Point Shale" to "Kettle Point Formation." Paul H. ( talk) 02:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Help needed at Talk:Mantle plume#Units. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been working on properly sourcing the Maastrichtian article, and it turns out the article has a rather lengthy "Lithostratigraphy and palaeogeography" section. This describes a few Maastrichtian formations in some detail, but only for North America, Africa, and Asia, thus not even covering the type section in northwest Europe. So it's far from comprehensive, and there's no obvious criteria for the choice of formations included.
I'm inclined to reduce this to a palaeogeography section, with perhaps brief mentions of a few notable formations, but before such extensive cutting, I thought I'd ask the project here whether there is a good argument for including lengthy lithostratigraphy sections like this one in stage articles. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at the Conception Group article, which also appears in Ediacaran biota, and I noticed a figure that seemed familiar. The figure is File:Mistaken Point reconstruction.jpg. The same figure is published as “Fig. 13. Conjectural reconstruction of the sedimentary paleoenvironment of the Ediacaran (565 Ma) Mistaken Point Formation in Newfoundland (based on data from Retallack, 2014a)” on page 29 of:
Retallack, G.J., 2016. Ediacaran sedimentology and paleoecology of Newfoundland reconsidered. Sedimentary Geology, 333, pp.15-31.
Although the Wikimedia Commons page states the source as “own work”, the paper in which it appears is marked as “© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.”
Is this a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies? Paul H. ( talk) 15:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Hot dry rock geothermal energy—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
18:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Borax#Borax as mineral species -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Vice regent is reviewing the article at Talk:Geothermal_energy_in_Turkey/GA1 but I think neither of us know much about geology. Could one of you possibly take a look at the section Geothermal_energy_in_Turkey#Geology to see whether I have summarized the sources correctly? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that User:86.187.164.96, and nearby IP addresses, have been adding a lot of cites to articles related to sedimentology. Usually the section to which these are added are already supported by reliable sources. For the most part, the citations are at least somewhat relevant, and I'm not generally against multiple supporting cites. I am feeling a bit uneasy, though, that what all the cites have in common is a Michael Montenori as one of the authors. Apologies if I'm being too paranoid here, but I suspect promotional citing. Ignore? Post some kind of caution at the user talk page? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 17:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The place for this is WP:COIN Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
A requested move of Abiogenesis to Origin of life is under discussion. Project members are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to be a separate page from the Pebas Formation which it redirects to because many sources consider it a separate formation. Patachonica ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone here got access to The Mineralogical Record 2015? It doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia Library and I'm reluctant to buy a back issue for $18 plus postage, but I'd love to see Éléonore de Raab expanded with info from the 2015 article about her collection which is mentioned there. The 2009 report from the same authors describes their discovery of it in a castle and promises further update. If you can access their 2015 article, please update our page - or point me to any online access I haven't discovered. Will also post at WPP Rocks and Minerals. Thanks. Pam D 05:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The name of Vredefort crater needs to be corrected to "Vredefort Dome". Firts, this not an impact crater, which is the topographic expression of an impact. In case of the Vredefort Dome impact structure, the original topographic expression of the impact, its crater, has been long since been destroyed by erosion leaving only the deformed bedrock , which is the impact structure, behind. I proposed changing it to "Vredefort Dome" because that it the common term used in the literature and the World Heritage designation. "Vredefort crater" would be retained as a redirect. Paul H. ( talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi all--I ran into this abandoned draft and tried to clean it up a bit. It's so far outside of my expertise that I'm at the end of my capability. Any help would be appreciated--and then please either move it to mainspace, or decline it again if you think that's right. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I am reviving an unresolved discussion about the inclusion criterion for List of fossil sites. Please feel free to join the discussion. — hike395 ( talk) 22:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Chime in if you see fit: Talk:Scoria#Merger proposal Kent G. Budge ( talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the project portal to geology rather than earth sciences after updating the Geology portal.
I believe it would be best to create a separate WikiProject for
Earth Sciences in order to manage the overall topic rather than the individual sub-topics. Trying to manage geology topics is a project of it's own and other Earth Science related subjects such as oceanography, weather, climate change, environment, etc. would likely benefit from a dedicated project with the aim of enhancing the categorization and linkage amongst the relevant subtopics.
Terrickisaiah555
[T]/
[C]
17:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I (who am without a background in geology) have been looking at the layout of Stone (disambiguation) and at the incoming links to Stone. One of the main meanings of the term is one that I'd need help with. This is "stone" as an object, often a small one: one that you can for example pick up from the ground and toss into the water of a lake or use in a game of checkers. It can also be bigger: for example, the stone you may put as a waymarker at a fork in the footpath.
Which article covers this meaning? That's clearly not Rock (geology), as our focus is not on the substance of the object (and whether its origin is, say, igneous or sedimentary). I would think clast is the concept that covers this particular meaning, but that title is a redirect to Clastic rock, which is hardly any better. The most relevant content appears to reside in the series of articles Pebble, Cobble (geology) and Boulder, but they're dependent on the size of the stone. – Uanfala ( talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The below open access paper should be useful for working with Wikipedia articles about impact craters.
Osinski, G.R., Grieve, R.A., Ferrière, L., Losiak, A., Pickersgill, A., Cavosie, A.J., Hibbard, S.M., Hill, P., Bermudez, J.J., Marion, C.L. and Newman, J.D., 2022. Impact Earth: A review of the terrestrial impact record. Earth-Science Reviews, no. 104112. Open access
Paul H. ( talk) 04:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
In the Timeline of glaciation article, a couple of editors are disputing text over the possibility of a glaciation / icehouse climate during the Pliensbachian. I do not know enough to help out and a Jurassic expert might be able to help out. Discussion of a glaciation during the Pliensbachian is discussed in the Paleogeography section and in footnotes 12, 13, and 14 of Drzewica Formation. The specific edits are Latest revision as of 06:24, 21 August 2022 and Revision as of 03:38, 20 August 2022. Paul H. ( talk) 02:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Nadir crater, a supposed impact feature off of the coast of West Africa was announced recently. There's no real confirmation that it is indeed an impact feature, and the claim made by the authors that it occurred at the exact same time as the Chicxulub impact makes me sceptical, given the numerous dubious impact claims that we've previously discussed. The current article is in my opinion too credulous of the single study on it and its uncritical media splash (for instance treating the interpretation of the feature as an impact feature as a given), and needs to be rewritten. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a rewrite of Giant current ripples, trying to get rid of the enormous Russian section while leaving a legible article behind. But I am a bit unclear on the difference between giant current ripples and normal submarine dunes in rivers. I am hoping someone here with more knowledge about bedforms than me might be able to help me out. Is just it a matter of energy in the environment? what are the shape differences? (current version of rewrite can be found here) Licks-rocks ( talk) 09:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
New article, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Iridium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is large. I have proposed splitting out the content on Cave diving regions. Discussion at Talk:Cave diving#Due for a split some time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Mount Garibaldi is at FAC for the first time since 2008. Any comments/supports are welcomed. Volcano guy 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Does Archaean still need a maintenance tag? Looks fine to me? It's short, but otherwise it looks fine. Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Hey, this article is currently being expanded quite rapidly. What is still missing from the article? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Anteosaurus magnificus has unilaterally merged Late Ordovician glaciation and Early Palaeozoic Icehouse into Andean-Saharan glaciation. While I'm not vehemently opposed to the change, I think it should be reviewed. In particular, I don't think "Andean-Saharan glaciation" is a widely used term, as I can find only 86 papers using it, many of which are only tangentially related. [4] Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the figure with the sketch illustrating the introduction of the obduction page is inexact. See here beside this figure and its the legend:
This figure was recently removed from the version of the page in the French language because, according to another contributor, during the process of obduction, no accretionary wedge is formed.
For more information, please, have a look here on the talkpage of obduction to see the discussion I have recently opened there.
I am not a specialist in this field. Can someone help to correct the obduction page (especially its introduction) and provide a correct image not showing an accretionary wedge.
Without correction, this misleading image should be removed. In advance, thank you very much. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 17:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have been researching the boulder clay article with aims of improving it. Although this term is still sparingly used in the modern literature, the general consensus seems that boulder clay is currently regarded as a ...term used in Great Britain as an equivalent of till... as defined in the AGI Glossary of Geology. Boulder clay does not seem notable enough to warrent a separate article. Maybe its article should be merged with till and deleted. Should a ADF be proposed for the boulder clay article with reccomendation that it be merged with the till article? Paul H. ( talk) 01:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I was looking the number of hits that various Wikipedia pages and found striking anomalies in the Missoula Floods and Lake Missoula articles web pages.
On approximately Oct 25, 2022, the hits for both pages spike from 50-150 hits to almost 500 hits for one dat for Lake Missoula article. For the Missoula Floods article, the hit counts abruptly jumps from a tens few hundreds of hits per day to around 31,000 - 32,000 hits on the same day and drops off sharply after that.
Any idea what happened around Oct 25, 2022? Paul H. ( talk) 01:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I regret to inform members of this WikiProject that prolific contributor Kent G. Budge passed away on November 10. Dr. Budge mentioned on his userpage that in late August that he had a nearly fatal car accident, so I presume his death was a complication of that. His obituary is here [6]. I am sure it is him because it mentions that donations should be sent to the New Mexico Geological Society, and New Mexico geology was something that Dr. Budge was very passionate about and a prolific contributor to, and the fact that the middle name lines up with the name used for his previous physics research [7]. In my time interacting with him, he was unfailingly pleasant and a pleasure to discuss with. His contributions to this Wikiproject are frankly enormous, having effectively rewritten many important articles, such as Banded iron formation (GA), Alluvial fan (GA), Limestone, Basalt, Metamorphism, Magma. I could go on. So long, Dr. Budge, and thanks for everything. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
IUGS has designated several geological heritage sites. See the book The First 100 IUGS Geological Heritage Sites (in PDF format) at https://iugs-geoheritage.org/videos-pdfs/iugs_first_100_book_v2.pdf For the heritage sites that are already the subject of an article, it might be worth mentioning their new status in the article. For any sites that are not yet the topic of an article, the designation by IUGS probably indicates that they are notable (and probably were notable even before the designation). Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Turning to the palaeontology redlinks in your list Mike, Site 039 Napak (Miocene fossils) is most closely associated with the page at Proconsul_major whilst site 033 the ammonite slab at Dignes-les-Bains get a look-in at Digne-les-Bains#Geology_and_terrain but this could be expanded. I'll see about adding something at Tete,_Mozambique in respect of site 032 Tete fossil forest. In the stratigraphy and sedimentology section, I'll see what might be done for the site 019 C-T unconformity at Telheiro - looking at the picture - wow, if Hutton had but seen this one! For site 020 we've this on Italian Wikipedia. Geopersona ( talk) 15:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I came across the article for the Kotuykanskaya impact structure. It should be the subject of a AFD because it is based solely on two sources, Klokočník et al. (2020) and Mikheeva (2014). Both papers use unconventional and untested techniques to detect impact structures. Also,there is a lack of review of both papers and their conclusions by secondary sources. Klokočník and Mikheeva seem to be the only authors that recognize Kotuykanskaya as an impact structure.
The papers are;
Klokočník, J., Kostelecký, J., Bezděk, A. et al. A 200 km suspected impact crater Kotuykanskaya near Popigai, Siberia, in the light of new gravity aspects from EIGEN 6C4, and other data. Sci Rep 10, 6093 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62998-6
Mikheeva A.V. The new tasks of structural geomorphology, resolved by the ENDDB geoinformation system, Computing Center Bulletin. Series Math. model. in geoph. – Novosibirsk: NCC Publisher, 17, 57-72 (2014) Paul H. ( talk) 16:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Years ago, I was told that I could not use the GEBCO global terrain model for ocean and land to make illustrations for Wikipedia articles because the copyright forbid the commercial use of products produced using it, which Wikipedia couldnot forbid. The latest version of it, GEBCO_2022 Grid, states "The GEBCO Grid is placed in the public domain and may be used free of charge." and "Commercially exploit The GEBCO Grid, by, for example, combining it with other information, or by including it in their own product or application." Does this mean, as long as proper credit is given, their copyright requirements no longer conflict with Wikipedia's copyright requirement and I can use the GEBCO_2022 Grid data with Global Mapper and graphic software to make Wikipedia figures for geology articles? Are there any Wikipedia administrators or editors who can answer this question for me? Paul H. ( talk) 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I put out an appeal to merge three articles in the oil & gas sector with no response. The idea was to provide clarity on a commercial definition that seems to have become accepted for lack of geological challenge. The previous definition has seeded a number of daughter articles and associated articles that go down a commercial rabbit hole. Commercial perspectives are important because they form the foundation of any enterprise-based venture. But they also need to be underpinned (in the oil & gas sector) by geological reality.
To be specific, a new irreducible definition of unconventional reservoirs (also referred to in the sector as unconventional resources, resource plays or just unconventionals) was created in November 2022. The new article responds directly to User:Geneus01's comment about changing the basis of the definition from non-unique and ever changing commercial premises to immutable physical premises, albeit under variable pressure and temperature conditions. The proposal here is to combine unconventional oil with unconventional gas and merge them under Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir, preserving the histories for all three. I’m a newby to this forum and appeal to those wiser than I for help - I can probably fumble through the process and achieve an acceptable product but I think it could also be done much better in collaboration with you who have much more experience than I, conferring some healthy gravitas in the process. Is anyone interested in collaborating with me on this? Allowing Wikipedia readership to understand what makes unconventional resources different will go a long way to bringing clarity to the environmental consequences of misinterpreting (or worse) the importance of drawing that distinction. Guy WF Loftus ( talk) 13:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the time scale templates for the period pages like Jurassic and Cretaceous were recently changed, and now the given temporal ranges don't make sense. For example, the time scale on Late Jurassic shows that 150 Ma was part of the Kimmeridgian, but the Kimmeridgian article says that it only lasted until 152.1 Ma. Which are the correct dates, and can the time scales and stage articles be fixed so that they can all be consistent? 49.144.194.123 ( talk) 14:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Article is a bit of a mess because of this. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this article, which was subject to a deletion discussion based on lack of coverage a while ago, and which is based on a single paper, has ended up getting merged into Kaveri completely uncritically. I have tried to alter some of the wording but I wonder if someone else who was part of the original discussion might want to take a look at it to see if the merge happened the way it was intended to (and if so possibly revert me). Licks-rocks ( talk) 13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Commentary not entered on the article talk page may be swept up in archives and lost. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Over the last two years or so I have been very slowly working on a complete rewrite of this article, which I found on our list of articles needing immediate attention. The original article is a machine translation of a Russian article that looks and reads like someone's personal biography writing project about the work of some Russian scientists in the Altai mountain range. I attempted to rectify this situation two years ago but quickly came to the conclusion that I would have to remove and replace so much material that only a stub would remain. The rewritten version is now in a sufficient state of completion that I would like to propose replacing the current article with it. If one (or several) of you could take a look and share your opinion/final adjustments before I go through with the move, that would be greatly appreciated: Here is the new version. (PS: I am not experienced with page-moves and the like at all. Should I just paste in my new version at the destination or is some more advanced wiki-sorcery required?) Licks-rocks ( talk) 17:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what the List of important publications in geology scope and purpose is? It looks like a very arbitrary gathering of publications at this point. Wp:coatrack?-- Kev min § 23:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If you'd like to comment, please feel free to join in the discussion at Template talk:Earth#Alphabetical ordering of rows + new links. Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at the Wikipedia article on the Gulf of Mexico. I noticed that in the Geology section, there is a paragraph devoted to a fringe, non-notable proposal that is not taken seriously by Gulf Coast geologists that the Gulf of Mexico is an extraterestrial impact crater. Given that we are weeding out the fringe and non-notable material out of the list of recognized and possible impact craters, I propose that is the time that this paragraph is removed. There is now more than enough subsurface and geophysical data, e.g. The Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin: Depositional Evolution and Petroleum Applications by J. W. Snedden and W. E. Galloway, to soundly refute this claim.
There is only a single supporting publication cited, which is:
Stanton, M. S., 2002, Is the Gulf's Origin Heaven Sent? American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Tulsa Oklahoma. Archived September 11, 2008, at the Wayback Machine AAPG Explorer (Dec. 2002). Paul H. ( talk) 01:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to perform an article reassessment at giant current ripples, which I updated rather significantly a while ago. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the Francevillian basin template on this article. Can anyone explain why it was put there? -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The article 2002 Vitim event seems to be based solely on sources of dubious reliability and lacking in secondary sources. Also, it lacks notability. It seems like a likely candidate for an AFD. Paul H. ( talk) 04:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Cintos In the Talk:Carolina bays section, Conflict of Interest And Cintos Edits, a single purpose editor, User:Cintos, requests that based only on primary sources that the (fringe) "“Davias” hypothesis" for the Middle Pleistocene origin of the Carolina bays be added to the Carolina bays article. The "“Davias” hypothesis" proposes that a Middle Pleistocene impact created Saginaw Bay, Michigan and resulted in the formation of the Carolina Bays and blanketed the entire eastern Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States with impact ejecta that now form thick sand epipedons.
The main primary source is:
Davias, M., and Harris, T.H.S., 2022, Postulating an unconventional location for the missing mid-Pleistocene transition impact: Repaving North America with a cavitated regolith blanket while dispatching Australasian tektites and giving Michigan a thumb, in Foulger, G.R., Hamilton, L.C., Jurdy, D.M., Stein, C.A., Howard, K.A., and Stein, S., eds., In the Footsteps of Warren B. Hamilton: New Ideas in Earth Sci- ence: Geological Society of America Special Paper 553, https://doi.org /10.1130/2021.2553(24).
I have not been able to find secondary and tertiary sources that critically evaluate this publciation.
Looking at the user page suggests that this single purpose account is being used solely to promote the "“Davias” hypothesis" within Wikipedia articles and likely represents a siginifcant Conflict of Interest. Paul H. ( talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
New stub, apparently translated from a ruWP stub. I am baffled that we do not seem to have an article of that name already, and suspect that it should b be redirected - I mean, we must cover that term somewhere, right? Couldn't quite figure out where though. Please have a look. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've RfD'd Geothermal, which currently points at geothermal gradient. Seems to me like redirecting from a very general topic to a very theoretical, technical article is a bit of an odd choice. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 17:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Is Changesite–(Y) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) supposed to be using an M-dash or an N-dash or a hyphen? This doesn't look like a conjunction. Wouldn't it be Changesite-(Y) ? -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 03:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Mount Vesuvius has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The International Commission on Stratigraphy has released their 2023 chronostratigraphic chart update [8]. There are substantial changes to the dates from the previous 2020 chart [9], which will need to be updated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about if a paper is notable and a primary source in Talk:Fossil#Fossilization and Preservation of Biological Cells and Tissues. Can someone tell me if I am confused or not? I might be. Paul H. ( talk) 01:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Low island and coral island seem to be covering the same topic and should probably be merged, preferably to the latter article. Am I missing something here? Volcano guy 18:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a number of navboxes/footers that correspond to geologic time spans, e.g., {{ Triassic footer}} or {{ Neogene footer}}. The design for these footers was from a consensus from 2018
Over at Template talk:Infobox rockunit, Hemiauchenia brought up the issue that the standard navbox blue clashes with the period color and looks strange. After some experimentation, I found that using a white background with a 2px border with the period color seems to work best. You can see several examples of the new design here. Please take a look and discuss whether you think the new proposal is better or if we should stick with the existing footers.
Pinging involved editors ( Kevmin— Abyssal— J. Johnson— RexxS— Redrose64— Graeme Bartlett— Paine Ellsworth— EdwardUK) --- what do you think? — hike395 ( talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Update: I've updated the examples to show the current proposal, which is the outline style, with 2px borders for the darker colors and 3px for the lighter (Cenozoic) ones. Since discussion has died down without strong objections, I'll start to implement this. I can always revert if there is new controversy. — hike395 ( talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I've nominated the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article for a peer review; comments can be left here. Volcano guy 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Notification of a discussion that may be of interest to this wikiproject - I have made a suggestion here: Template talk:Infobox rockunit#Possible change for colour accessibility, about a possible change to the infobox. Any comments on this would be helpful. EdwardUK ( talk) 15:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I proposed the Inverted Earth to be a prime candidate for AFD because the concept of an "inverted Earth" to be a trivial, non notable idea lacking any real scientific application. It started as art project on Deviant ART and then made its way to Youtube via Reddit and a couple of news articles. There is a lack of any peer-review sources in secondary and tertiary sources that establish it as anything notable. Paul H. ( talk) 20:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Geology, my name is Naweed and I work for Umbra, a synthetic-aperture radar company. I would love to donate images to improve articles for this project and to be a resource for Wikipedia. Umbra satellites can generate high-resolution images day and night, regardless of cloud cover, storms, and weather conditions. We can take images of almost any location in the world, which can be useful in looking at terrain and geological features, such as the Shungura Formation. I'm excited to see what Umbra can do for the Wikipedia community and I understand that Umbra will get no credit if an image of ours is used in an article. Right now, I'm mostly hoping to gauge interest and if I can be of help and be happy to take image requests (just need the coordinates). I will be making some similar posts at other WikiProjects that I hope could benefit from the imagery as well. Thanks! NT at Umbra ( talk) 20:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I suggest some volcanic locations:
GeoWriter ( talk) 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
An article has been recently created for a putative impact structure, the Bukit Bunuh impact structure. The article is based only on primary sources, conference proceeding and a couple of papers in regional journals, by a single group of researchers without any secondary sources. This article needs to be looked to see it it has sources to qualify as being notable enough for Wikipedia and see that this research is too soon to be in Wikipedia.
The most detailed paper is:
Quek, L.X., Ghani, A.A., Badruldin, M.H., Saidin, M., Harith, Z.Z.T. and Roselee, M.H., 2015. Platinum group elements in proximal impactites of the Bukit Bunuh impact structure, Malaysia. Current Science, pp.2303-2308. Paul H. ( talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please see Articles for deletion/Olancha Earthquake Sequence. Is this something we want to keep? Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
A few days ago I noticed a few formatting errors in Template:Cretaceous graphical timeline, which only became apparent on the articles for the stages in question. For example, the last ‘n’ in Valanginian and Hauterivian flow over onto a second line on their respective pages. It’s pretty clear that the boxes which contain the text are not broad enough for the bolded text which results when the stage articles link to themselves. The problem is even worse for the Permian timeline, where the bars are too narrow even without bolding. Looking onto other timeline templates, it seems that two solutions are generally pursued: making the stage font smaller (ex: Tremadocian, Jiangshanian) or abbreviating stage names (ex: Maastrichtian, Serpukhovian).
I personally think a cleaner solution would simply be to widen the timelines to a consistent width so that all the stage names can be displayed in full without circumstantial abbreviation or font reduction. The Silurian and Devonian timelines already appear to pursue this option, and I see no reason not to apply the same technique to other templates. I wanted to bring up this proposal here first, in case anyone has objections. If not, I’ll deal with the issue. Maybe I’ll clean up some other formatting issues (like the overly broad bars in parts of the Devonian timeline) and add some more event tags to relevant timelines (like the Late Ordovician mass extinction, as an example). Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 18:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Sammy2012 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been going on a spree of adding GPlates maps to the infoboxes of various geologic time periods. While for time periods closer to the present I think these might be okay, for Mesozoic and Paleozoic geologic periods, the paleogeography was so fundamentally different that in my opinion you can't just get away with cutting and pasting the current map, and it provides a misleading impression of the actual contemporary geography. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richter magnitude scale#Requested move 22 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone comment at Talk:Enhanced_geothermal_system#Un-merging_EGS_and_Hot_Dry_Rock? Chidgk1 ( talk) 20:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Do we need a separate article for Striation (geology)? The subject matter is alreday largely duplicated by other articles. There are already fully written, separate articles for Slickenside and Glacial striation. Should we add "slickenside" to the disambiguation page at Striation and either merge or delete the "Striation (geology)" article and added a few sentences about mineral striations to the Crystal habit article? Paul H. ( talk) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've made such a proposal here. Feel free to join in the discussion. — hike395 ( talk) 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Polymetalic nodules are small naturally occurring metallic minerals found at the bottom of the sea that can be mined, treated, and sold for a profit; the precise definition Ore as defined by its wiki page. I propose adding information on this newly leveraged form of ore on the pages for Ore and Ore Genesis. Check out the pages Deep sea mining and Ferromanganese nodules for more info. Also note that Ferromanganese nodules has been proposed to merge into Polymetalic nodules without ruling for some time. 192.77.12.11 ( talk) 07:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Global warming controversy—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors, greetings! I see a need of forming a new article for Geomatics engineering whose scope is increasing and article is yet to be made on wiki. Even Survey engineering can be redirected here. Being a subject of paramount importance and related to this wikiproject I would like to bring it to your kind notice. I would love to assist in the mean process as and when needed but being a civil engineering student I might not be able to accomplish this on my own having been unknown of various terms used. Franked2004 ( talk) 19:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
There are articles on the main rock-forming silicate groups (feldspar, pyroxene, amphibole, mica, olivine, ...?), but articles on other mineral groups seem to be generally absent. (I've recently added a short summary of the apatite group and supergroup at apatite. More recently, while correctng an error at Lothar Meyer I found that there was no coverage of the tsumcorite group. It strikes me that writing articles for mineral groups would be a more effective means of improving coverage of rarer minerals than writing articles on the individual minerals. (Redirects could be added for the individual minerals.)
This does have some overlap with WP:CHEMISTRY as the minerals are subsets of larger sets of compounds, e.g. many potential apatites don't occur in nature because the right melt/solution compositions also don't occur.
Any thoughts? Lavateraguy ( talk) 13:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I've proposed Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 13 (Philippines) for deletion. Discussion here. I've suggested what to do with it, but mayhap you all might have better ideas about it. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that there are separate stubs for Midway Group and Midway Formation, Gulf of Mexico Coast Plain. Which one should be kept and which one should be merged with the other?
They are both stubs so fixing this problem will be easy at this time. Paul H. ( talk) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the 1139 Ganja earthquake article. See Talk:1139 Ganja earthquake#Where? When?. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
While working on the Midway Group, I noticed that there are separate stubs for Wilcox Group and Wilcox Formation, Gulf of Mexico Coast Plain. Should I merge Wilcox Formation into Wilcox Group?
By the way, there is a Wilcox Formation recognized in Vermont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul H. ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The main difficulty with the Hellenic Trench article, and to some extent the Hellenic subduction zone and Hellenic arc articles, is that there are recently published sources that continue to refer to the trench as the surface manifestation of the subduction zone. However, if you accept that the Mediterranean Ridge is an accretionary wedge formed above the subduction zone, and I have yet to find a single source that contradicts that interpretation, this cannot be the case, despite the large number of RS that refer to it in that way. I wrote the Hellenic subduction zone article with this in mind, attempting to balance the weight of evidence and the available sources. I feel that neither the trench or arc articles are in a good state right now, the first has far too much that is barely relevant and the second was partly rewritten in the same way by the same editor. At the time I failed to reach a consensus on the relevant talk pages and I rather gave up and went off to do something else. I did create a draft article for the trench here but never went any further with it. Being virtually certain that so many RS are wrong doesn't leave me in an ideal place to improve the articles. Any suggestions as to how this can be handled would be very welcome. Mikenorton ( talk) 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:T. Rex and the Crater of Doom#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Meekororum is edit warring regarding the age of the Shaximiao Formation. The dating of this formation has long been contentious, due to the fact that it is a continental deposit without any volcanic beds that could provide easily interpretable zircon dates, though it is widely agreed to be Middle-Upper Jurassic in age. Instead authors have been relying on detrital zircon dating, where zircon grains are sifted from sedimentary beds, and the youngest zircon ages are taken as a proxy for the age of the beds. A recent detrital Zircon study has found the age of the formation to be entirely Upper Jurassic in age [1] however, a unpublished preprint regarding a newly found tuff bed has found the formation to be Middle Jurassic in age again [2]. Meekoroum is insisting that the formation should be listed in wikivoice as solely Upper Jurassic in age, based on the 2018 study. I don't think we should treat single papers as established information when the age of the formation appears to still be contentious in the literature. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I too am conservative both with respect to single paper sourcing and with respect to preprints. An encyclopedia can afford to wait for some consensus, and get-by by mentioning the variations in the text. I see nothing wrong in mentioning preprint data so long as it is not treated as gospel. So on that basis, I support meekororum's "middle-late Jurassic" solution. -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Note: I already posted this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology, but User:Hemiauchenia referred me here.
Just letting you know that the dinosaur-bearing Serra da Galga and Ponte Alta members of the Marília Formation were recently split off into the Serra da Galga Formation, leaving Kurupi itaata as the only fossil taxon from the redefined Marília Formation. I have proposed a split on the Marília's talk page. Your help is appreciated. Miracusaurs ( talk) 01:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.
WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.
We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo, infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, a mass deletion of redirects to the list article List of geological features on Venus has been proposed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 -- 65.92.246.43 ( talk) 08:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Has been listed for deletion.
Dawnseeker2000 06:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Volcanic ash 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. Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Retreat of glaciers since 1850 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 ( talk) 10:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As part of the reforms to geological period infoboxes a parameter for Atmospheric Oxygen Concentration was added. My main concern here is that there is essentially no consensus at all in the literature about the actual values of prehistoric atmospheric oxygen concentration levels. Figure 2 of the recent paper Atmospheric oxygen of the Paleozoic is illustrative of how wide the variance in recent studies actually is. The paper deploys a new technique for estimating atmospheric oxygen concentrations from air bubbles trapped in halite, but I see no widespread consensus yet in the literature for the reliability of this method over other proxies. I think that all "atmospheric oxygen concentration" values in geologic system/period infoboxes should be removed for now. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Geothermal energy has been nominated for an individual 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. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Australia (continent)#Definition of the continent which may be of interest to members. BilCat ( talk) 01:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Giant current ripples ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) figured I'd let the people here know I'm taking a hedge clipper to this abomination, which appears to have existed in close to its current form since at least 2012. The sources are exclusively in russian, which makes it even harder to make sense of, which is likely part of why it's lasted so long. If some of you guys who are more familiar with the subject area could take a look and see if what's left makes any sense at all, it would be greatly appreciated. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, a number of templates for periods (including some that I created) have been listed for deletion. I believe they have something to do with WP:GEOL but I don't recall what they were for, or if they have been deprecated. Input would be appreciated, thanks. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a member of Project Geology, so please forgive any protocol error or trespass by asking a question here is that is not appropriate.
I started Uranium mining in the Bancroft area which, of course, incudes a lot of geology content. I'm somewhat new here and realized in the process of this that I've relied too much on quotations. And yet, I'm not skilled to summarize the geology quotations that the article relies upon, instead I quoted the Geological Survey of Canada at length. As a very new article, it's on the path to be featured as Did You Know, and the people who run that process encouraged me to fix the overuse of quotations. (more background about that is here, in case anyone is interested: /info/en/?search=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area )
In case anyone was interested to help summarize the longer quotations, it would be helpful. CT55555 ( talk) 13:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello geology folks! This is not my area of expertise, but I wanted to draw your attention to a list of articles all recently created by the same editor:
I genuinely can't tell if these are meaningful articles, or if they are WP:SYNTH or WP:OR - they have references, but it's been pointed out at the AfD discussion above that at least in that case, the references don't necessarily support the text. They have few incoming links, although that's perhaps to be expected for new articles. It might be worth someone with subject matter expertise having a gander, and possibly offering their thoughts on the existing AfD. Cheers! PianoDan ( talk) 21:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This was a leftover from the fringe impact crater cleanup. I can't find substantial sourcing for the Middle-Urals Ring Structure impact claims, which have only been mentioned by two authors, the first of which was entirely in conference abstracts, and the other authors mentions are fairly brief. As such I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-Urals Ring Structure. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 06:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Only the subject of a single 2017 paper that has received zero citations, but some contemporary Indian news coverage.
Supposed crater off the West Coast of India that has been claimed to have formed contemperaneuously to Chicxulub and to have been involved in the K-Pg extinction. It's certainly been mentioned a few dozen times in the literature, almost entirely uncritically, but is almost completely ignored in discussions of the K-Pg extinction. I don't see any critical secondary coverage that could be used to write a good article about it.
A lake in Iraq claimed by some archaeologists to have been created by an impact responsible for disaster in the Near East around 2200 BC. No onsite work has actually been done to prove these claims. Only critical paper claims that the lake actually exists due to subsidence of basement fault blocks. I've taken somewhat of an axe to this already, but it could use some less credulous writing of the disaster claims.
Discredited impact crater claims from Spain. There appears to have been a controversy when the claims were delisted from the Earth Impact Database. I think the controversy is likely notable, but the articles currently lend undue weight towards the impact hypotheses. Both articles were made by the same, long inactive SPA, Decubridor (Spanish for "discoverer"). For both claims there appears to be a group of researchers who self-publish work promoting the impact hypotheses (see [3], and it is possible that both articles were initially created by one of them. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think for citing whether impact claims are considered "confirmed", we should rely on the EID, who are the most authoritative and selective source. I am concerned by the use of The Complete Catalog of the Earth's Impact structures by Anna Mikheeva, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences as the main authority on the likihood of impact claims in the List of possible impact structures on Earth. She doesn't appear to have any academic authority in this area, and there are no clear criteria for why she gives the ratings she does for particular claims. I am also concerned about the Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures], which is also associated with the RAS. This list also seems iffy and non-authoritative compared to the EID. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
References
User:Clay1965 has been adding IMA mineral name abbreviations to mineral articles in two places in each article: (1) unexplained in the name field of the infobox and (2) in parentheses immediately following the mineral name in the first sentence of the article; see, for example, Anorthite: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anorthite&oldid=1055555462 . User:Vsmith has then, without explanation, been removing the abbreviations from the infobox; see, for example, Anorthite: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anorthite&oldid=1055568689 . Assuming that User:Clay1965 intends to add abbreviations to all 5000+ mineral articles, it would be a large-volume, project-wide change. I suggest that editing should be paused and discussion started here about this topic, in the hope that consensus may emerge about the best way to present the IMA name abbreviation in any mineral article.
I do not like the IMA name abbreviation appearing in parentheses, immediately after the mineral name, in the first sentence of the article. It is a minor piece of information. I also do not like the abbreviation appearing (unexplained) after the name in the infobox. My preference is for the abbreviation to be mentioned only once, in a sentence of its own, somewhere lower down in the main body of the article. — GeoWriter ( talk) 21:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I will stop adding the abbreviations until there is an agreement. To me it was logical to add the symbol after the name, in conformity with the format used for the symbols of chemical elements. e.g. /info/en/?search=Gold Gold is also an metallic element that occurs as a mineral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay1965 ( talk • contribs) 07:19, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
As a second point, I am currently preparing a minerals symbol pages where all IMA symbols are listed. I was then intending to link the "IMA symbol" back to this page when published rather than to the IMA page. Advice would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay1965 ( talk • contribs) 07:24, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to add the definition after the appearance of the name in the main text to maintain general conformity with the way abbreviations are defined, e.g. as for the chemical elements) and to remove the abbreviation from the mineral box. I would prefer this, as many minerals do not yet have an information box. This is essentially the suggesion used by User:Vsmith for Anorthite: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anorthite&oldid=1055568689. Once released, I will then link the IMA symbol to the new IMA symbols page where all explanations will be given. Would this be acceptable? Clay1965 ( talk) 12:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC) comment added by Clay1965 ( talk • contribs) 08:08, November 18, 2021 (UTC)
I removed the IMA abbreviation from the infobox as unexplained clutter and added a link to the IMA abbreviation in the text of the articles. The addition of an unlinked IMA symbol seemed rather absurd as it seems a technical term which would be meaningless to most readers. If it is to be included in the infobox, it needs its own "line" with link to IMA. Vsmith ( talk) 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not know how to add a new line to the infobox template. Mindat places the symbol after the classification line- so it this would probably be the best location for it. Can anybody help introdue this to the template? Clay1965 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I will try and set it up as suggested. I would, however, suggest we use the term "IMA symbol" in accordance with the new IMA-CNMNC terminology used in their newsletters and in recent publications. I am also preparing page called "Mineral symbols", which I have been waiting a few months for it to be approved. Would be great if you could take a look at it. 78.55.180.79 ( talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have a handful of articles on individual marine isotope stages (More specifically Marine Isotope Stage 5, Marine Isotope Stage 11, Marine Isotope Stage 13 and Marine Isotope Stage 9), as well as several redirects like Marine Isotope Stage 16 (which goes to Don Glaciation) and Marine Isotope Stage 12 (which redirects to Anglian stage). Having articles on a seemlingly random four isotope stages when there are over 20 of them in total feels somewhat haphazard. Is there a better, more systematic way to treat this material? The redirects also seem somewhat inappropriate (redirecting from a global stage to regional stratigraphy), would these be better redirected to the main MIS article? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've recently come across the article called Camadas de Guimarota, which I believe to be the old Portuguese name for the Alcobaça Formation, which is a separate article. I've proposed a merger on the Alcobaça's talk page. Your help is appreciated. Miracusaurs ( talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the periodic table in the lede of the periodic table article have 18-columns or 32?
The rfc is here.
I thought I'd ask given the involvement, for example, of quite a few of the elements in biogeochemical cycles.
Sandbh ( talk) 22:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I have opened a Featured Article Review for Chicxulub crater, feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chicxulub crater/archive1. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.
Thank you. Sandbh ( talk) 07:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Oil shale 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 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
We have a Stratum page that seems problematic. First, it is almost entirely unsourced, with just a single link to a Britannica article on stratification. Second, it is full of statements like "The "stratum" is the fundamental unit in a stratigraphic column" which suggest that "stratum" is being confounded here with "formation". The article as a whole seems redundant with Stratigraphy. Third, "stratum" has a bazillion other meanings across the sciences, as you can see if you type "Stratum" into the search box.
I'm wondering if this page should be converted into a disambiguation page for all those bazillions of meanings, and anything in the page that is not already in the Stratigraphy page should be moved there. Not trying to kick over any more hornets' nests this morning, but the page bugs me. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Ok, from poking around some more it looks like "bed" and "lamination" are generally used as descriptions of the thickness of a stratum. I'll start a merger proposal on Stratum so we can continue the discussion there get more input. CrunchyRocks ( talk) 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I've decided that, in light of my horribly bad ignorance of geological science, I'm not really in a position to offer a useful opinion on the right thing to do. But I still find the Stratum article problematic. Please, just somebody do something useful with this article. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 23:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The Merger Proposal for Talk:Stratum article was incorrectly closed. As a result comments continued to be added to it despite it being offically closed. Although I have looked at it and the Wikipedia page for merging articles, I cannot figure out how to closed it properly.
Could someone better acquainted with article merger proposals properly close this merger proposal as I plan to work on Bed (geology). Paul H. ( talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Geology of the Lassen volcanic 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. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed two nearly identical redirect pages that each point to different articles:
Tectonic plates → List of tectonic plates
Tectonic Plates → Plate tectonics
Only one of these should be kept as "Tectonic plates" and the other should either be renamed or removed, the main issue is which one gets to stay. I can see the argument for keeping either so any input would be appreciated.
CrunchyRocks ( talk) 05:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
A question of notability and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Below is an useful recording of a webinar that explains the use of the North American Stratigraphic Code. It discusses in detail the proper usage of terminology as required by the North American Stratigraphic Code.
Geologic Names and Usage: A Guide to Stratigraphic Nomenclature American Geosciences Institute, webinar, March 4, 2022
Geologic Names and Usage: A Guide to Stratigraphic Nomenclature, the Youtube version of above video.
For Canada, there is Lexicon of Canadian Geological Names on-line.
And for Mexico, there is Léxico Estratigráfico de México.
Not for Wikipedia, but for people interested in geology, other videos are available from American Geosciences Institute's YouTube channel. Paul H. ( talk) 04:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello all. I came across this article in a pretty sad state. It had but a single source, from Google Sites (eugh).
Considering how it's probably the quintessential singular "thing" in geology - you can't study rocks much if you're not breaking them - I think it's important to bring this article up to modern standards.
Most of it was written before 2015 and just needs a general cleanup.
I've found two decent sources, but am struggling to find more to finish off the article and clean it up. Help would be appreciated! DiamondIIIXX ( talk) 04:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Geology! I've been running through stub articles in Canada's Northwest Territories today, and encountered Manuel Creek Formation and Manual Creek Formation - separate articles, but they look like they might refer to the same thing. I also checked List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in the Northwest Territories, where the Manuel Creek Formation is listed but not "Manual". Please confirm that Manual Creek Formation is an error, and let me know? Thanks very much, PK T(alk) 19:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I have been making use of GEOLEX as a rapid first-pass to establishing notability and correct names for U.S. geologic units. I now read in the policy that "such lists and databases should not be directly cited in Wikipedia articles".
Frankly, I don't see a problem with starting out a page with citation of authoritative tertiary sources such as GEOLEX, especially for identifying date and origin of type name and location, but it should be seen that in fleshing out these pages that I range far beyond the sources that GEOLEX lists. That is, I generally look elsewhere for information on units.
I guess I would look for permission of such use in updated wording of the policy.
I also quibble with the statement that "GEOLEX links the most notable peer-reviewed publications on each stratigraphic unit in its database". In general, the "significant publications" pages start with the original name classification paper, but my impression is that the listed publications are usually rather dated. For example, there has been revolution on the Dakota and the Western Interior Seaway since 2000, but GEOLX hasn't kept up, and it does not seem to track the apparent broad abandonment of the Colorado Group.
IveGoneAway ( talk)
In Grand Canyon region, I noticed that for there is an article for both the Supai Group and Supai Formation. The latter article is still a stub. Should the Supai Formation article be merged with the Supai Group article and converted into a redirect before someone expends more effort on it? Paul H. ( talk) 19:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
A link to commercial and fringe web site, Properties of Crystals, is being added to the Wikipedia articles of different gemstones. These include Gemstone, Amethyst, and Rhodonite. Sometimes, it is a standalone link under "Reference" and in other cases, it is associated with some poorly written text. What should be done about these edits? Paul H. ( talk) 02:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I need someone to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratch hardness and determine the notability of this term, as well as the other two non-Mohs scales being compared to the Mohs scale in this article. I was unable to find anything at all to suggest that either scale, Wooddall's or Ridgway's, are notable or worth comparing to Mohs. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
An informed opinion on this one would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opglabbeek Formation Thanks, Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, flabber my gast. I just tried looking up Crystal form; it took me to Crystal and I discovered that that article does not actually discuss forms, using the word only in the colloquial sense. Likewise, Crystal structure does not have any mention of crystal forms except in the colloquial sense. Neither does Crystallography. I'll try to gin up a short article or a section of a article (the logical place is probably Crystallography), unless one of you knows where a discussion of crystal forms is hidden away somewhere in the Wiki that we can re-redirect to.
If one of you is inclined to fix this, go right ahead -- I am presently up to my ears putting together a book manuscript and this is restricting my editing time on Wikipedia severely.
-- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
What makes a rock-stratigraphic unit, i.e.formation, group, member, "notable" in terms of deserving of a wikipedia article? Paul H. ( talk) 00:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
You know, how much backing does Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability does actually have when it's marked as "essay"? The current "policy" (rather: "guideline") of notability that applies here is actually Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of woking on the Kettle Point Shale article. While reading through and taking notes, I found that "Kettle Point Formation" is the preferred usage over "Kettle Point Shale" in forma publications including the DNAG volume (GSA), Canadian Geological Survey reports, and a Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology paper. I cannot find it in Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units. How can I find which is the official usage? If the Kettle Point Formation is the preferred usage, I am tempted to move the page "Kettle Point Shale" to "Kettle Point Formation." Paul H. ( talk) 02:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Help needed at Talk:Mantle plume#Units. TIA Andrewa ( talk) 15:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been working on properly sourcing the Maastrichtian article, and it turns out the article has a rather lengthy "Lithostratigraphy and palaeogeography" section. This describes a few Maastrichtian formations in some detail, but only for North America, Africa, and Asia, thus not even covering the type section in northwest Europe. So it's far from comprehensive, and there's no obvious criteria for the choice of formations included.
I'm inclined to reduce this to a palaeogeography section, with perhaps brief mentions of a few notable formations, but before such extensive cutting, I thought I'd ask the project here whether there is a good argument for including lengthy lithostratigraphy sections like this one in stage articles. -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 15:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at the Conception Group article, which also appears in Ediacaran biota, and I noticed a figure that seemed familiar. The figure is File:Mistaken Point reconstruction.jpg. The same figure is published as “Fig. 13. Conjectural reconstruction of the sedimentary paleoenvironment of the Ediacaran (565 Ma) Mistaken Point Formation in Newfoundland (based on data from Retallack, 2014a)” on page 29 of:
Retallack, G.J., 2016. Ediacaran sedimentology and paleoecology of Newfoundland reconsidered. Sedimentary Geology, 333, pp.15-31.
Although the Wikimedia Commons page states the source as “own work”, the paper in which it appears is marked as “© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.”
Is this a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies? Paul H. ( talk) 15:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Hot dry rock geothermal energy—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
18:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Borax#Borax as mineral species -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Vice regent is reviewing the article at Talk:Geothermal_energy_in_Turkey/GA1 but I think neither of us know much about geology. Could one of you possibly take a look at the section Geothermal_energy_in_Turkey#Geology to see whether I have summarized the sources correctly? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that User:86.187.164.96, and nearby IP addresses, have been adding a lot of cites to articles related to sedimentology. Usually the section to which these are added are already supported by reliable sources. For the most part, the citations are at least somewhat relevant, and I'm not generally against multiple supporting cites. I am feeling a bit uneasy, though, that what all the cites have in common is a Michael Montenori as one of the authors. Apologies if I'm being too paranoid here, but I suspect promotional citing. Ignore? Post some kind of caution at the user talk page? -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 17:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The place for this is WP:COIN Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
A requested move of Abiogenesis to Origin of life is under discussion. Project members are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to be a separate page from the Pebas Formation which it redirects to because many sources consider it a separate formation. Patachonica ( talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone here got access to The Mineralogical Record 2015? It doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia Library and I'm reluctant to buy a back issue for $18 plus postage, but I'd love to see Éléonore de Raab expanded with info from the 2015 article about her collection which is mentioned there. The 2009 report from the same authors describes their discovery of it in a castle and promises further update. If you can access their 2015 article, please update our page - or point me to any online access I haven't discovered. Will also post at WPP Rocks and Minerals. Thanks. Pam D 05:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The name of Vredefort crater needs to be corrected to "Vredefort Dome". Firts, this not an impact crater, which is the topographic expression of an impact. In case of the Vredefort Dome impact structure, the original topographic expression of the impact, its crater, has been long since been destroyed by erosion leaving only the deformed bedrock , which is the impact structure, behind. I proposed changing it to "Vredefort Dome" because that it the common term used in the literature and the World Heritage designation. "Vredefort crater" would be retained as a redirect. Paul H. ( talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi all--I ran into this abandoned draft and tried to clean it up a bit. It's so far outside of my expertise that I'm at the end of my capability. Any help would be appreciated--and then please either move it to mainspace, or decline it again if you think that's right. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I am reviving an unresolved discussion about the inclusion criterion for List of fossil sites. Please feel free to join the discussion. — hike395 ( talk) 22:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Chime in if you see fit: Talk:Scoria#Merger proposal Kent G. Budge ( talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the project portal to geology rather than earth sciences after updating the Geology portal.
I believe it would be best to create a separate WikiProject for
Earth Sciences in order to manage the overall topic rather than the individual sub-topics. Trying to manage geology topics is a project of it's own and other Earth Science related subjects such as oceanography, weather, climate change, environment, etc. would likely benefit from a dedicated project with the aim of enhancing the categorization and linkage amongst the relevant subtopics.
Terrickisaiah555
[T]/
[C]
17:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I (who am without a background in geology) have been looking at the layout of Stone (disambiguation) and at the incoming links to Stone. One of the main meanings of the term is one that I'd need help with. This is "stone" as an object, often a small one: one that you can for example pick up from the ground and toss into the water of a lake or use in a game of checkers. It can also be bigger: for example, the stone you may put as a waymarker at a fork in the footpath.
Which article covers this meaning? That's clearly not Rock (geology), as our focus is not on the substance of the object (and whether its origin is, say, igneous or sedimentary). I would think clast is the concept that covers this particular meaning, but that title is a redirect to Clastic rock, which is hardly any better. The most relevant content appears to reside in the series of articles Pebble, Cobble (geology) and Boulder, but they're dependent on the size of the stone. – Uanfala ( talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The below open access paper should be useful for working with Wikipedia articles about impact craters.
Osinski, G.R., Grieve, R.A., Ferrière, L., Losiak, A., Pickersgill, A., Cavosie, A.J., Hibbard, S.M., Hill, P., Bermudez, J.J., Marion, C.L. and Newman, J.D., 2022. Impact Earth: A review of the terrestrial impact record. Earth-Science Reviews, no. 104112. Open access
Paul H. ( talk) 04:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
In the Timeline of glaciation article, a couple of editors are disputing text over the possibility of a glaciation / icehouse climate during the Pliensbachian. I do not know enough to help out and a Jurassic expert might be able to help out. Discussion of a glaciation during the Pliensbachian is discussed in the Paleogeography section and in footnotes 12, 13, and 14 of Drzewica Formation. The specific edits are Latest revision as of 06:24, 21 August 2022 and Revision as of 03:38, 20 August 2022. Paul H. ( talk) 02:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Nadir crater, a supposed impact feature off of the coast of West Africa was announced recently. There's no real confirmation that it is indeed an impact feature, and the claim made by the authors that it occurred at the exact same time as the Chicxulub impact makes me sceptical, given the numerous dubious impact claims that we've previously discussed. The current article is in my opinion too credulous of the single study on it and its uncritical media splash (for instance treating the interpretation of the feature as an impact feature as a given), and needs to be rewritten. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a rewrite of Giant current ripples, trying to get rid of the enormous Russian section while leaving a legible article behind. But I am a bit unclear on the difference between giant current ripples and normal submarine dunes in rivers. I am hoping someone here with more knowledge about bedforms than me might be able to help me out. Is just it a matter of energy in the environment? what are the shape differences? (current version of rewrite can be found here) Licks-rocks ( talk) 09:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
New article, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Iridium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is large. I have proposed splitting out the content on Cave diving regions. Discussion at Talk:Cave diving#Due for a split some time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Mount Garibaldi is at FAC for the first time since 2008. Any comments/supports are welcomed. Volcano guy 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Does Archaean still need a maintenance tag? Looks fine to me? It's short, but otherwise it looks fine. Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Hey, this article is currently being expanded quite rapidly. What is still missing from the article? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 15:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Anteosaurus magnificus has unilaterally merged Late Ordovician glaciation and Early Palaeozoic Icehouse into Andean-Saharan glaciation. While I'm not vehemently opposed to the change, I think it should be reviewed. In particular, I don't think "Andean-Saharan glaciation" is a widely used term, as I can find only 86 papers using it, many of which are only tangentially related. [4] Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the figure with the sketch illustrating the introduction of the obduction page is inexact. See here beside this figure and its the legend:
This figure was recently removed from the version of the page in the French language because, according to another contributor, during the process of obduction, no accretionary wedge is formed.
For more information, please, have a look here on the talkpage of obduction to see the discussion I have recently opened there.
I am not a specialist in this field. Can someone help to correct the obduction page (especially its introduction) and provide a correct image not showing an accretionary wedge.
Without correction, this misleading image should be removed. In advance, thank you very much. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 17:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have been researching the boulder clay article with aims of improving it. Although this term is still sparingly used in the modern literature, the general consensus seems that boulder clay is currently regarded as a ...term used in Great Britain as an equivalent of till... as defined in the AGI Glossary of Geology. Boulder clay does not seem notable enough to warrent a separate article. Maybe its article should be merged with till and deleted. Should a ADF be proposed for the boulder clay article with reccomendation that it be merged with the till article? Paul H. ( talk) 01:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I was looking the number of hits that various Wikipedia pages and found striking anomalies in the Missoula Floods and Lake Missoula articles web pages.
On approximately Oct 25, 2022, the hits for both pages spike from 50-150 hits to almost 500 hits for one dat for Lake Missoula article. For the Missoula Floods article, the hit counts abruptly jumps from a tens few hundreds of hits per day to around 31,000 - 32,000 hits on the same day and drops off sharply after that.
Any idea what happened around Oct 25, 2022? Paul H. ( talk) 01:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I regret to inform members of this WikiProject that prolific contributor Kent G. Budge passed away on November 10. Dr. Budge mentioned on his userpage that in late August that he had a nearly fatal car accident, so I presume his death was a complication of that. His obituary is here [6]. I am sure it is him because it mentions that donations should be sent to the New Mexico Geological Society, and New Mexico geology was something that Dr. Budge was very passionate about and a prolific contributor to, and the fact that the middle name lines up with the name used for his previous physics research [7]. In my time interacting with him, he was unfailingly pleasant and a pleasure to discuss with. His contributions to this Wikiproject are frankly enormous, having effectively rewritten many important articles, such as Banded iron formation (GA), Alluvial fan (GA), Limestone, Basalt, Metamorphism, Magma. I could go on. So long, Dr. Budge, and thanks for everything. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
IUGS has designated several geological heritage sites. See the book The First 100 IUGS Geological Heritage Sites (in PDF format) at https://iugs-geoheritage.org/videos-pdfs/iugs_first_100_book_v2.pdf For the heritage sites that are already the subject of an article, it might be worth mentioning their new status in the article. For any sites that are not yet the topic of an article, the designation by IUGS probably indicates that they are notable (and probably were notable even before the designation). Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Turning to the palaeontology redlinks in your list Mike, Site 039 Napak (Miocene fossils) is most closely associated with the page at Proconsul_major whilst site 033 the ammonite slab at Dignes-les-Bains get a look-in at Digne-les-Bains#Geology_and_terrain but this could be expanded. I'll see about adding something at Tete,_Mozambique in respect of site 032 Tete fossil forest. In the stratigraphy and sedimentology section, I'll see what might be done for the site 019 C-T unconformity at Telheiro - looking at the picture - wow, if Hutton had but seen this one! For site 020 we've this on Italian Wikipedia. Geopersona ( talk) 15:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I came across the article for the Kotuykanskaya impact structure. It should be the subject of a AFD because it is based solely on two sources, Klokočník et al. (2020) and Mikheeva (2014). Both papers use unconventional and untested techniques to detect impact structures. Also,there is a lack of review of both papers and their conclusions by secondary sources. Klokočník and Mikheeva seem to be the only authors that recognize Kotuykanskaya as an impact structure.
The papers are;
Klokočník, J., Kostelecký, J., Bezděk, A. et al. A 200 km suspected impact crater Kotuykanskaya near Popigai, Siberia, in the light of new gravity aspects from EIGEN 6C4, and other data. Sci Rep 10, 6093 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62998-6
Mikheeva A.V. The new tasks of structural geomorphology, resolved by the ENDDB geoinformation system, Computing Center Bulletin. Series Math. model. in geoph. – Novosibirsk: NCC Publisher, 17, 57-72 (2014) Paul H. ( talk) 16:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Years ago, I was told that I could not use the GEBCO global terrain model for ocean and land to make illustrations for Wikipedia articles because the copyright forbid the commercial use of products produced using it, which Wikipedia couldnot forbid. The latest version of it, GEBCO_2022 Grid, states "The GEBCO Grid is placed in the public domain and may be used free of charge." and "Commercially exploit The GEBCO Grid, by, for example, combining it with other information, or by including it in their own product or application." Does this mean, as long as proper credit is given, their copyright requirements no longer conflict with Wikipedia's copyright requirement and I can use the GEBCO_2022 Grid data with Global Mapper and graphic software to make Wikipedia figures for geology articles? Are there any Wikipedia administrators or editors who can answer this question for me? Paul H. ( talk) 04:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I put out an appeal to merge three articles in the oil & gas sector with no response. The idea was to provide clarity on a commercial definition that seems to have become accepted for lack of geological challenge. The previous definition has seeded a number of daughter articles and associated articles that go down a commercial rabbit hole. Commercial perspectives are important because they form the foundation of any enterprise-based venture. But they also need to be underpinned (in the oil & gas sector) by geological reality.
To be specific, a new irreducible definition of unconventional reservoirs (also referred to in the sector as unconventional resources, resource plays or just unconventionals) was created in November 2022. The new article responds directly to User:Geneus01's comment about changing the basis of the definition from non-unique and ever changing commercial premises to immutable physical premises, albeit under variable pressure and temperature conditions. The proposal here is to combine unconventional oil with unconventional gas and merge them under Unconventional (oil & gas) reservoir, preserving the histories for all three. I’m a newby to this forum and appeal to those wiser than I for help - I can probably fumble through the process and achieve an acceptable product but I think it could also be done much better in collaboration with you who have much more experience than I, conferring some healthy gravitas in the process. Is anyone interested in collaborating with me on this? Allowing Wikipedia readership to understand what makes unconventional resources different will go a long way to bringing clarity to the environmental consequences of misinterpreting (or worse) the importance of drawing that distinction. Guy WF Loftus ( talk) 13:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the time scale templates for the period pages like Jurassic and Cretaceous were recently changed, and now the given temporal ranges don't make sense. For example, the time scale on Late Jurassic shows that 150 Ma was part of the Kimmeridgian, but the Kimmeridgian article says that it only lasted until 152.1 Ma. Which are the correct dates, and can the time scales and stage articles be fixed so that they can all be consistent? 49.144.194.123 ( talk) 14:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Article is a bit of a mess because of this. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this article, which was subject to a deletion discussion based on lack of coverage a while ago, and which is based on a single paper, has ended up getting merged into Kaveri completely uncritically. I have tried to alter some of the wording but I wonder if someone else who was part of the original discussion might want to take a look at it to see if the merge happened the way it was intended to (and if so possibly revert me). Licks-rocks ( talk) 13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Commentary not entered on the article talk page may be swept up in archives and lost. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Over the last two years or so I have been very slowly working on a complete rewrite of this article, which I found on our list of articles needing immediate attention. The original article is a machine translation of a Russian article that looks and reads like someone's personal biography writing project about the work of some Russian scientists in the Altai mountain range. I attempted to rectify this situation two years ago but quickly came to the conclusion that I would have to remove and replace so much material that only a stub would remain. The rewritten version is now in a sufficient state of completion that I would like to propose replacing the current article with it. If one (or several) of you could take a look and share your opinion/final adjustments before I go through with the move, that would be greatly appreciated: Here is the new version. (PS: I am not experienced with page-moves and the like at all. Should I just paste in my new version at the destination or is some more advanced wiki-sorcery required?) Licks-rocks ( talk) 17:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone understand what the List of important publications in geology scope and purpose is? It looks like a very arbitrary gathering of publications at this point. Wp:coatrack?-- Kev min § 23:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
If you'd like to comment, please feel free to join in the discussion at Template talk:Earth#Alphabetical ordering of rows + new links. Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at the Wikipedia article on the Gulf of Mexico. I noticed that in the Geology section, there is a paragraph devoted to a fringe, non-notable proposal that is not taken seriously by Gulf Coast geologists that the Gulf of Mexico is an extraterestrial impact crater. Given that we are weeding out the fringe and non-notable material out of the list of recognized and possible impact craters, I propose that is the time that this paragraph is removed. There is now more than enough subsurface and geophysical data, e.g. The Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin: Depositional Evolution and Petroleum Applications by J. W. Snedden and W. E. Galloway, to soundly refute this claim.
There is only a single supporting publication cited, which is:
Stanton, M. S., 2002, Is the Gulf's Origin Heaven Sent? American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Tulsa Oklahoma. Archived September 11, 2008, at the Wayback Machine AAPG Explorer (Dec. 2002). Paul H. ( talk) 01:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to perform an article reassessment at giant current ripples, which I updated rather significantly a while ago. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the Francevillian basin template on this article. Can anyone explain why it was put there? -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 21:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The article 2002 Vitim event seems to be based solely on sources of dubious reliability and lacking in secondary sources. Also, it lacks notability. It seems like a likely candidate for an AFD. Paul H. ( talk) 04:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@ User:Cintos In the Talk:Carolina bays section, Conflict of Interest And Cintos Edits, a single purpose editor, User:Cintos, requests that based only on primary sources that the (fringe) "“Davias” hypothesis" for the Middle Pleistocene origin of the Carolina bays be added to the Carolina bays article. The "“Davias” hypothesis" proposes that a Middle Pleistocene impact created Saginaw Bay, Michigan and resulted in the formation of the Carolina Bays and blanketed the entire eastern Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States with impact ejecta that now form thick sand epipedons.
The main primary source is:
Davias, M., and Harris, T.H.S., 2022, Postulating an unconventional location for the missing mid-Pleistocene transition impact: Repaving North America with a cavitated regolith blanket while dispatching Australasian tektites and giving Michigan a thumb, in Foulger, G.R., Hamilton, L.C., Jurdy, D.M., Stein, C.A., Howard, K.A., and Stein, S., eds., In the Footsteps of Warren B. Hamilton: New Ideas in Earth Sci- ence: Geological Society of America Special Paper 553, https://doi.org /10.1130/2021.2553(24).
I have not been able to find secondary and tertiary sources that critically evaluate this publciation.
Looking at the user page suggests that this single purpose account is being used solely to promote the "“Davias” hypothesis" within Wikipedia articles and likely represents a siginifcant Conflict of Interest. Paul H. ( talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
14:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
New stub, apparently translated from a ruWP stub. I am baffled that we do not seem to have an article of that name already, and suspect that it should b be redirected - I mean, we must cover that term somewhere, right? Couldn't quite figure out where though. Please have a look. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've RfD'd Geothermal, which currently points at geothermal gradient. Seems to me like redirecting from a very general topic to a very theoretical, technical article is a bit of an odd choice. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 17:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Is Changesite–(Y) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) supposed to be using an M-dash or an N-dash or a hyphen? This doesn't look like a conjunction. Wouldn't it be Changesite-(Y) ? -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 03:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Mount Vesuvius has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The International Commission on Stratigraphy has released their 2023 chronostratigraphic chart update [8]. There are substantial changes to the dates from the previous 2020 chart [9], which will need to be updated. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion about if a paper is notable and a primary source in Talk:Fossil#Fossilization and Preservation of Biological Cells and Tissues. Can someone tell me if I am confused or not? I might be. Paul H. ( talk) 01:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Low island and coral island seem to be covering the same topic and should probably be merged, preferably to the latter article. Am I missing something here? Volcano guy 18:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a number of navboxes/footers that correspond to geologic time spans, e.g., {{ Triassic footer}} or {{ Neogene footer}}. The design for these footers was from a consensus from 2018
Over at Template talk:Infobox rockunit, Hemiauchenia brought up the issue that the standard navbox blue clashes with the period color and looks strange. After some experimentation, I found that using a white background with a 2px border with the period color seems to work best. You can see several examples of the new design here. Please take a look and discuss whether you think the new proposal is better or if we should stick with the existing footers.
Pinging involved editors ( Kevmin— Abyssal— J. Johnson— RexxS— Redrose64— Graeme Bartlett— Paine Ellsworth— EdwardUK) --- what do you think? — hike395 ( talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Update: I've updated the examples to show the current proposal, which is the outline style, with 2px borders for the darker colors and 3px for the lighter (Cenozoic) ones. Since discussion has died down without strong objections, I'll start to implement this. I can always revert if there is new controversy. — hike395 ( talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I've nominated the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article for a peer review; comments can be left here. Volcano guy 19:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Notification of a discussion that may be of interest to this wikiproject - I have made a suggestion here: Template talk:Infobox rockunit#Possible change for colour accessibility, about a possible change to the infobox. Any comments on this would be helpful. EdwardUK ( talk) 15:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I proposed the Inverted Earth to be a prime candidate for AFD because the concept of an "inverted Earth" to be a trivial, non notable idea lacking any real scientific application. It started as art project on Deviant ART and then made its way to Youtube via Reddit and a couple of news articles. There is a lack of any peer-review sources in secondary and tertiary sources that establish it as anything notable. Paul H. ( talk) 20:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Geology, my name is Naweed and I work for Umbra, a synthetic-aperture radar company. I would love to donate images to improve articles for this project and to be a resource for Wikipedia. Umbra satellites can generate high-resolution images day and night, regardless of cloud cover, storms, and weather conditions. We can take images of almost any location in the world, which can be useful in looking at terrain and geological features, such as the Shungura Formation. I'm excited to see what Umbra can do for the Wikipedia community and I understand that Umbra will get no credit if an image of ours is used in an article. Right now, I'm mostly hoping to gauge interest and if I can be of help and be happy to take image requests (just need the coordinates). I will be making some similar posts at other WikiProjects that I hope could benefit from the imagery as well. Thanks! NT at Umbra ( talk) 20:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I suggest some volcanic locations:
GeoWriter ( talk) 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
An article has been recently created for a putative impact structure, the Bukit Bunuh impact structure. The article is based only on primary sources, conference proceeding and a couple of papers in regional journals, by a single group of researchers without any secondary sources. This article needs to be looked to see it it has sources to qualify as being notable enough for Wikipedia and see that this research is too soon to be in Wikipedia.
The most detailed paper is:
Quek, L.X., Ghani, A.A., Badruldin, M.H., Saidin, M., Harith, Z.Z.T. and Roselee, M.H., 2015. Platinum group elements in proximal impactites of the Bukit Bunuh impact structure, Malaysia. Current Science, pp.2303-2308. Paul H. ( talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please see Articles for deletion/Olancha Earthquake Sequence. Is this something we want to keep? Thanks, -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 03:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
A few days ago I noticed a few formatting errors in Template:Cretaceous graphical timeline, which only became apparent on the articles for the stages in question. For example, the last ‘n’ in Valanginian and Hauterivian flow over onto a second line on their respective pages. It’s pretty clear that the boxes which contain the text are not broad enough for the bolded text which results when the stage articles link to themselves. The problem is even worse for the Permian timeline, where the bars are too narrow even without bolding. Looking onto other timeline templates, it seems that two solutions are generally pursued: making the stage font smaller (ex: Tremadocian, Jiangshanian) or abbreviating stage names (ex: Maastrichtian, Serpukhovian).
I personally think a cleaner solution would simply be to widen the timelines to a consistent width so that all the stage names can be displayed in full without circumstantial abbreviation or font reduction. The Silurian and Devonian timelines already appear to pursue this option, and I see no reason not to apply the same technique to other templates. I wanted to bring up this proposal here first, in case anyone has objections. If not, I’ll deal with the issue. Maybe I’ll clean up some other formatting issues (like the overly broad bars in parts of the Devonian timeline) and add some more event tags to relevant timelines (like the Late Ordovician mass extinction, as an example). Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 18:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Sammy2012 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been going on a spree of adding GPlates maps to the infoboxes of various geologic time periods. While for time periods closer to the present I think these might be okay, for Mesozoic and Paleozoic geologic periods, the paleogeography was so fundamentally different that in my opinion you can't just get away with cutting and pasting the current map, and it provides a misleading impression of the actual contemporary geography. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Richter magnitude scale#Requested move 22 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping ( talk) 03:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone comment at Talk:Enhanced_geothermal_system#Un-merging_EGS_and_Hot_Dry_Rock? Chidgk1 ( talk) 20:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Do we need a separate article for Striation (geology)? The subject matter is alreday largely duplicated by other articles. There are already fully written, separate articles for Slickenside and Glacial striation. Should we add "slickenside" to the disambiguation page at Striation and either merge or delete the "Striation (geology)" article and added a few sentences about mineral striations to the Crystal habit article? Paul H. ( talk) 03:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've made such a proposal here. Feel free to join in the discussion. — hike395 ( talk) 15:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Polymetalic nodules are small naturally occurring metallic minerals found at the bottom of the sea that can be mined, treated, and sold for a profit; the precise definition Ore as defined by its wiki page. I propose adding information on this newly leveraged form of ore on the pages for Ore and Ore Genesis. Check out the pages Deep sea mining and Ferromanganese nodules for more info. Also note that Ferromanganese nodules has been proposed to merge into Polymetalic nodules without ruling for some time. 192.77.12.11 ( talk) 07:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Global warming controversy—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors, greetings! I see a need of forming a new article for Geomatics engineering whose scope is increasing and article is yet to be made on wiki. Even Survey engineering can be redirected here. Being a subject of paramount importance and related to this wikiproject I would like to bring it to your kind notice. I would love to assist in the mean process as and when needed but being a civil engineering student I might not be able to accomplish this on my own having been unknown of various terms used. Franked2004 ( talk) 19:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
There are articles on the main rock-forming silicate groups (feldspar, pyroxene, amphibole, mica, olivine, ...?), but articles on other mineral groups seem to be generally absent. (I've recently added a short summary of the apatite group and supergroup at apatite. More recently, while correctng an error at Lothar Meyer I found that there was no coverage of the tsumcorite group. It strikes me that writing articles for mineral groups would be a more effective means of improving coverage of rarer minerals than writing articles on the individual minerals. (Redirects could be added for the individual minerals.)
This does have some overlap with WP:CHEMISTRY as the minerals are subsets of larger sets of compounds, e.g. many potential apatites don't occur in nature because the right melt/solution compositions also don't occur.
Any thoughts? Lavateraguy ( talk) 13:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I've proposed Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 13 (Philippines) for deletion. Discussion here. I've suggested what to do with it, but mayhap you all might have better ideas about it. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that there are separate stubs for Midway Group and Midway Formation, Gulf of Mexico Coast Plain. Which one should be kept and which one should be merged with the other?
They are both stubs so fixing this problem will be easy at this time. Paul H. ( talk) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the 1139 Ganja earthquake article. See Talk:1139 Ganja earthquake#Where? When?. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
While working on the Midway Group, I noticed that there are separate stubs for Wilcox Group and Wilcox Formation, Gulf of Mexico Coast Plain. Should I merge Wilcox Formation into Wilcox Group?
By the way, there is a Wilcox Formation recognized in Vermont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul H. ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The main difficulty with the Hellenic Trench article, and to some extent the Hellenic subduction zone and Hellenic arc articles, is that there are recently published sources that continue to refer to the trench as the surface manifestation of the subduction zone. However, if you accept that the Mediterranean Ridge is an accretionary wedge formed above the subduction zone, and I have yet to find a single source that contradicts that interpretation, this cannot be the case, despite the large number of RS that refer to it in that way. I wrote the Hellenic subduction zone article with this in mind, attempting to balance the weight of evidence and the available sources. I feel that neither the trench or arc articles are in a good state right now, the first has far too much that is barely relevant and the second was partly rewritten in the same way by the same editor. At the time I failed to reach a consensus on the relevant talk pages and I rather gave up and went off to do something else. I did create a draft article for the trench here but never went any further with it. Being virtually certain that so many RS are wrong doesn't leave me in an ideal place to improve the articles. Any suggestions as to how this can be handled would be very welcome. Mikenorton ( talk) 17:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:T. Rex and the Crater of Doom#Requested move 10 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)