Talk:Rock microstructure

I shall endeavour to provide information, especially on metamorphic microstructure and igneous microstructure, in the coming days and weeks. The existing sections on each section don't provide much information on interpreting these things and what they actually are. In essence, there's a lot of info on what metamorphic rocks, what shear, what foliations are (but not really foliations; as of this date its purely a mathematical explanation!), but I don't think anyone who's written much really knows about much. I cite the total lack of explanation of what a porphyroblast is. So, hopefully this page can be linked in from other pages and we can expand it, especially with the methodology of textral analysis. Rolinator 00:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds exciting! I suggest you create an article named foliation (geology) or similar; it could just be a stub, but there ought to be something. I have just one gripe for Rock microstructure: could you please list your references? Melchoir 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I'm not updating this from work in my lunch hour(s), yes... :) Rolinator 01:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the reference material; the book by Vernon rocks out, especially on the igneous textures. Its more or less what you need, though I'll track down photos and such separately.Rolinator 06:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroclastic

"pyroclastic: rock contain fragments of crystals, phenocrysts and rock fragments", isn't this definition a bit too wide and general? Doesn't name also imply that the rock was formed in a nuee ardente or some other reasonably violent volcanic eruption ejecting pyroclasts? Granites do in several places carry fragments of darker rocks, but that wouldn't make them pyroclastic, would it?150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with some improvement I think as it needs to specify that almost all the material is volcanic in type. Note that a nuee ardente is related specifically to pyroclastic flow, rather than say a pyroclastic fall, which consists of similar material but deposited by airfall. I'll have a go at rewording. Mikenorton (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge texture (geology) with this page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge to Texture (geology), on the grounds that the topics are synonyms and that texture is still the more widely-used common language term. Klbrain (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that links to Texture (geology) be redirected here and references plus any relevant content this article lacks be carried across. Although I only knew of the term rock texture until quite recently, having two separate pages for what is essentially different terminology seems redundant to me. This article in fact starts by stating that "texture and microstructure are interchangeable". I would do the merge myself now, but I lack the time and importantly, expertise. However, if this goes unnoticed/uncontested long enough I will look into doing it myself. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 04:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In geology the word "texture" has a variety of meanings, as a glance at list of rock textures shows (even if it does lack sourcing). Rock microstructures are generally more about the deformation history of a rock, although they do overlap a lot with what are described as "textures". Including the related term fabric, it's extremely difficult to get a consistent set of definitions for these terms. My gut feeling is to keep them separate, but it's difficult to provide a clear reasoning for that, which I realise is not very helpful. Mikenorton (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gut feelings can be useful common sense checks, I would have thought to keep them separate at first too, but in its current state there is very little that the texture article covers which this one doesn't. Especially in the "igneous microstructure" section here, which overlaps entirely with the second paragraph of the texture article and is constructed much better. The final line in the texture article is also just one of many features listed in rock fabric. I agree that a set of definitions is difficult, but would be very useful and would be helped by this article catching both. The main issue with keeping the articles separate, is avoiding the exact same thing being said twice. Content cannot really be moved across from this article, as it is directly relevant, though this article would need a bit of rewriting with a merge anyway (perhaps even a title change? A redirect article would become necessary too, 65 different articles all link to texture). Primarily, it would be useful to specify that the term "texture" is usually (as far as I know) applied to the general appearance and broad physical characteristics of a rock as used in identification, and also to differentiate from rock fabric, though I think this could be done along with moving any well-sourced information across. Now that you have pointed it out to me, tying this article in better with the dedicated article for rock fabric may also be worthwhile, to better differentiate and clarify. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case for merging them, but I'd merge the other way -- keeping Texture (geology) as the article name. For one thing, as Mikenorton points out, texture is the more general term. For another , the texture article is presently getting twice the hit rate as the microstructure article, and there's something to be said for putting the articles where readers are aiming. Of course, with a redirect, the reader will end up at the kept article eventually anyway. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mikenorton´s concerns. Before any potential merger, I would suggest presenting a more thorough overview (with sources, examples, "hits", and links) to have a good ground to evaluate the merger. I'm sorry to be a bit conservative in this regard, but it would really be useful to have some more input as an aid to evaluate the matter. Lappspira (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points! A conservative opinion on merging is welcome, I can see now I was quite too hasty in my original proposal. I wanted to merge towards Texture (geology) at first, but this article had so much more content I assumed it to be the more developed. I hadn't fully considered the hits, perhaps instead of a full merge a lot of the information from this article could be moved/copied to texture? Thus this article could remain a more specific focus on literal microstructure, without the need for a messy redirect, and texture can be expanded with the information it needs, seeing as it gets more hits than this page, despite inferior quality. The sources cited here would be very useful for development over there as well. More input is certainly welcome on the matter. Should I update the merge proposal to reflect the reversed merge/copy across? I do not know quite what the procedure is for that case, WP:COPYWITHIN is a bit vague and I am very far from experienced in this matter. Thanks for helping me out Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 04:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]