Talk:Cataclasite

Geology C‑class Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Cataclasite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 3 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JennaRan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I altered "porphyroclast" to "clast" as the linked definition for porphyroclast only mentions grain-size reduction by recrystallization. I know that porphyroclast is in the Brodie et al. proposed nomenclature but I think that many structural geologists would disagree with that usage. I had an article on cataclasite all ready to go, but I was a day too late :). I added a section on formation, for which I'll try to find a good reference, and an extra category. Mikenorton 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no expertise in the topic and so I have no idea what that meant. I just learn enough necessary to create a basic article so that some poor kid doing a research paper can have some kind of basic introduction to the topic, and then I just let other people edit it while I work on stuff like mechanics, etc. which is where more of my knowledge lies. --queso man 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep up the good work, leave the specialists to nitpick. The next job is to do something with the articles on "cataclasis" and "cataclastic", I'll probably just redirect them when I've worked out how. Mikenorton 05:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The Cataclastic and Cataclasite pages are both rather short and overlap a great deal in content. I suggest that they are merged into Cataclasite. Mikenorton (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against merging cataclasite with cataclastic, because the two are not synonyms. A cataclasite is a cataclastic rock, but a cataclastic rock is not necessarily a cataclasite. Even though the distinction isn't clear from the current articles, merging the two would add to the confusion. Woodwalker (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there is a clear distinction between the adjective and the noun, my only thought was that the current cataclastic page adds very little to what is in the cataclasite page. Ideally there should also be pages for 'cataclasis' the process (currently redirects to cataclastic) and 'cataclastic flow', which is a deformation mechanism. The cataclastic page needs a total rewrite if it's going to remain, something I'll try to have a go at later today. Mikenorton (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the classification scheme I have here, the term "cataclastic rock" includes not only cataclasite, but also fault gauge, fault breccia, etc. You're right that there are some related definitions to cover too. It's probably not necessary to have independent articles for each subject, as long as the distinctions are clearly addressed. If you need help, tell me. Good luck and regards, Woodwalker (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick trawl through the literature that I have to hand, I'm now leaning towards renaming 'cataclastic' to 'cataclastic rock', in keeping with the pages on sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks, cataclasite would then be summarised in that article. Any thoughts on this? Mikenorton (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like your merge proposal. Instead, how about merging "tectonite"/"tectonic rock" with "cataclastic rock"? Woodwalker (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was very unclear in my last contribution to this discussion. My intention is actually to drop the merge proposal and to replace 'cataclastic' with 'cataclastic rock', expand it as such, including brief descriptions of cataclasite, fault breccia, fault gouge and pseudotachylite with links to their individual articles. Hopefully that's a bit clearer. As to tectonite, that's another can of worms IMO. Mikenorton (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misunderstanding... Your second proposal seems a good idea to me. Tectonite currently only pays attention to ductile tectonic rocks. It is out of balance. Woodwalker (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I will be adding content to this article and providing journal article citations for content already present. My main edits include adding a setting subheading as well as going more into detail about the classification schemes and the original one presented by sibson (1997). I will also introduce 'foliated cataclasite' and add some photos of cataclasites.JennaRan (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]