This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology. 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.
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 A recent detrital Zircon study has found the age of the formation to be entirely Upper Jurassic in age [1] however, a unpublished preprint regarding a newly found tuff bed has found the formation to be Middle Jurassic in age again [2].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)
@Hemiauchenia I am sorry if my edits are being taken the wrong way. I don't believe that I am arguing that the Shaximiao Formation is solely Upper Jurassic in age, since I have included 174.7 Ma as the earliest date in the fossil range. I see that this could be communicated a bit better, perhaps reading "?Middle Jurassic-Late Jurassic" in the infobox. I simply thought that as Wang et al. have the most recent peer-reviewed data, their dates should be given the most importance until new data from the preprint is published in a peer-reviewed paper. I believe that there should be some clarification on how conservative editors should be when interpreting new data on controversial geological formations. However, I will undo my most recent change pending further discussion. Meekororum (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I personally prefer to avoid using preprints as a source on Wikipedia, but I have no idea what the consensus on that is around here.(EDIT: I just checked. see WP:PREPRINTS. Bottom line is they're generally not considered reliable.) That being said I think I support meekororum's "middle-late Jurassic" solution. Maybe with the more precise age range in brackets? (so, Oldest age paper1-youngest age paper2, for example) --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:59, 24 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)
I agree with others that labelling the formation Middle-Late Jurassic is the best solution (what I originally argued for in the first place), as this appears to be the consensus in the literature. I didn't bring up the preprint because I thought that it should be treated as established information, but that there was potentially still issues over the age of the formation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
Wiki Science Competition 2021
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)
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)
Prehistoric atmospheric oxygen concentrations
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)
I think adding an atmospheric oxygen concentration in the infobox is a bad idea, yeah. Besides there being no consensus on what it would be, I also think giving it one number would lead to a lot of oversimplification, there's a lot of periods where the oxygen concentration moves around a lot, and the further back you go the bigger the problem gets. Oxygen concentrations seem like an excellent example of the kind of thing that should be handled in the body of the article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Things like the Great Oxygenation Event and the likely high oxygen levels in the late Proterozoic -- likely plummeting in the early Tertiary -- are fascinating topics that cannot survive being reduced to a single number. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I've gone and stripped the O2 concentration, as well as the CO2 concentration and temperature values from the infoboxes of all Paleozoic and Mesozoic periods, with the latter two for similar reasoning as given above. One interesting thing I learned while reading up on this is that there is essentially no consensus in the literature for the supposed high O2 levels in the Carboniferous that you often see parroted in textbooks. Indeed the "Atmospheric oxygen of the Paleozoic" study finds O2 levels during the Early Carboniferous to be around 15%, substantially lower than modern levels. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 12 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)
Giant current ripples (edit | 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)
One Idea might be to rename the article in its current form "giant current ripples in russia.", given how much the article focuses on that particular subject. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
A better balance would be a good thing, for sure. There may be reasons to keep some of the literature in Russian, but there are plenty of papers describing the Russian examples in English. Mikenorton (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I have started a full rewrite, which can be found here. The main reason I'm doing a rewrite instead of continuing to try and fix the original article is that giant ripples actually turn out to occur a lot less above surface than below, making the original article, which was already very limited in scope before I realised this, even more limited. And also there's only so much poor auto-translation and flowery language I can handle before I explode. I think we will be better served with a more compact, accurate article than trying to continue building from something that has clearly discouraged us from any major improvement ever since its creation. Honestly I'm surprised this article has never been submitted to AFD for being an incredibly poor machine translation, which is a pretty common occurrence on my native (dutch) wiki. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:21, 23 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area )
Hi CT55555 - always good to ask! Just an observation; I don't think you need quite the level of detail which is included in the original references, particularly when they are accessible online to anyone who wants to follow up a shorter WP summary of the geology. I'll let another geologist more familiar with Canadian mining than me, attend to the 'nuts and bolts' of it though. cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Geopersona Thanks, I completely agree (although somewhat learned that lesson since writing the article) but because I'm not skilled to rewrite it, I'm also badly suited to editing it down. The linked document was added by me, partly to help with this - i.e. making it easier for people to get that data. I assume a few sentences would suffice where I have currently copied and pasted long paragraphs. CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 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)
these are all E, going by the titles. Maybe except for condensed sections, which I am unaware of. I suspect I might de-orphan Contour currents soon, for example. I suspect there might be some duplicates in there however. Which some other editors also pointed out while I was typing this--Licks-rocks (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just read the contour current article and the quality of work here isn't very good. Everything that's written is correct, but it's written in a way that only a fellow oceanographer could understand. I don't know all the worlds in there and I am almost done with a bachelor's degree in a related field. Licks-rocks (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The the quality of work for the Incised valleys article also isn't very good. For example, the first sentence, which reads, "Incised valleys are mountain-valley-like features..." makes no sense. The whole article needs serious work. Paul H. (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
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.
Found that in 2019 an IP user removed the only critical coverage the article had of the claims. To be fair, the sourcing wasn't ideal, but there has been very little critical coverage, so I think WP:PARITY might apply and allow the material to be restored.
All Pati and Pati (2013:214 and 216), "Chapter 15 Impact Cratering from an Indian Perspective" in that book, states is "The Ramgarh structure, a crater-like feature in Rajasthan (Master and Pandit 1999; Sisodia et al. 2006), and the proposed Shiva structure in the Arabian Sea to the southwest of the Indian subcontinent (Chatterjee et al. 2006) have also been suggested to be of possible impact origin. However, Chatterjee et al. (2006) do not provide any substantial evidence for the existence of a crater structure and certainly not for the existence of an impact structure at Shiva." Paul H. (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
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)
Earth Impact Database vs Expert Database on Earth Impact Structures and Anna Mikheeva's list.
Re: the two spanish structures I've had to deal with this one recently as part of some nearby fieldwork. I was actually thinking of looking them up on here when you mentioned the first one. It does indeed appear to be heavily disputed to say the least.[1]--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)
My not very strong opinion is that, as a minor piece of information, the IMA abbreviation should be a separate item well down in the infobox. This would also allow a label link to a single place that explains what the IMA abbreviation is about. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:43, 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/w/index.php?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 see what you are saying Clay1965, but I think that you are in danger of mixing apples and oranges in your reasoning. While many chemical elements are commonly, even in non-scientific popular culture, referred to by their abbreviations, I can't think of a single mineral whose IMA abbreviation is generally recognized outside geological and mineralogical circles. That being the case, it shouldn't be used without explanation in the infobox title, and it doesn't need to appear in the introductory line in the lead. I'm ambivalent on the latter inclusion – assuming there is some explanatory text and a link as you have done already I don't see too much harm, but it is a fairly inconsequential piece of information for a non-specialist reader, and specialists are going to use mindat or similar if they need a quick reference – but in the infobox it definitely would be better incorporated as a standalone line item. Pyrope12:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with pyrope and the others that the best solution is probably just an extra parameter in the infobox. Seems like that's the most logical place to leave a designation that all minerals have but isn't very well known outside of specialist circes. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:20, 18 November 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 have found your draft in Draft:Mineral symbols (abbreviations). One comment is that it would have been better to redlink minerals rather than link to mindat, as this is not so easily maintainable. If someone writes a new mineral article, it will not automatically be linked — it would require an edit to the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I do like the idea to include this in the infobox mineral. The parameter name "IMAsymbol=" seems OK. There do appear to be some parameter names with included spaces, but personally I do not like that kind of syntax allowing spaces in parameter names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"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 do not agree
I like it appearing in parentheses, immediately after the mineral name. It is an universal, a major piece of information. It is the same on all languages. Mineralienatlas.de is giving up labels on foreign languages. People: John F. Kennedy (JFK), Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), Amy Coney Barret (ACB), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG), Hillary R. Clinton (HRC). Elements: sodium (Na), potassium (K), iron (Fe), boron (B), lithium (Li), calcium (Ca). Minerals: galen (Gn), halite (Hl), calcite (Cal), gypsum (Gp), actinolite (Act), albite (Ab). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Chris.urs-o, can you please explain why you think the mineral abbreviation symbol is a major piece of information? Who uses these symbols and why do they use them? I still think it is one of the least significant things about any mineral. It is interesting that Mineralienatlas is ceasing use of non-English labels, but how significant is their decision? (I think Mineralienatlas is a mineral enthusiasts' website filled by user-generated content, much like Wikipedia). I think you are suggesting that the mineral symbol should be in the first sentence in parentheses after the full name of every mineral, irrespective of how well-known a mineral and its symbol are? I think your comparison with famous people does not work. Their three-letter abbreviations are widely known and widely used only because the people are famous. Chemical element symbols are known to many general readers of Wikipedia because they are taught in almost every school in the world. Mineral symbols are unknown to, and never used by, the general reader of Wikipedia, which I suggest means that mineral symbols should be in the infobox only, for reasons of completeness.GeoWriter (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Clay1965, at 07:19, November 18, 2021 (UTC) you wrote "I will stop adding the abbreviations until there is an agreement.". Why did you add the mineral symbol to the Feldspar article at 06:56, 9 December 2021? GeoWriter (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Clay1965, apologises- I thought it was okay to continue adding new IMA symbols in this location after some support for the idea occurred. To me it still seems the logical place to add this information, which is consistent with the general style of Wikipedia. As many mineral descriptions do not include infoboxes, it is is also the most consistent format that can be achieved. I would also point out that there are many hundreds of publications produced each year that use such symbols in figures, tables and petrological diagrams, so I would not simply describe the information as minor. My personal opinion is that any official abbreviation/text symbol that is part of official (internationally recognized) nomenclature is best described along with the presentation of the name itself. To my knowledge this is already pretty much standard to Wikipedia.Clay1965 (talk 20:00, December 9, 2021 (UTC)
I believe the idea with the most support is to add them to the infobox as a parameter. I believe some people above have already written a a partial explanation on how to achieve this above.--Licks-rocks (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Chris.urs-o (the most prolific editor of English Wikipedia's mineral articles) objects to the infobox solution and favours Clay1965's original approach of including the symbol in the first sentence of the main text of each mineral article. However, Chris.urs-o has not yet responded to my questions that I asked on 9 December. Considering we are now in the end-of-year festive period which disrupts many editors usual editing routines, I suggest that this editor should be given more time to respond. Also, I hope that User:Motekov will add an opinion. Disagreement seems to be about whether a mineral symbol is a major or minor piece of information about a mineral. (My original position when I started this discussion was an undue weight argument because the symbol is a minor not a major feature; I've been persuaded that a new infobox parameter is the most effective way of presenting the symbol). I have not been convinced by the reasons presented to support the claim that the mineral symbol is a major piece of information about a mineral. The first comprehensive list of IMA-approved mineral symbols was published only a few months ago; before this list was agreed and published, mineralogists coped easily because the symbols are not a major feature of a mineral. GeoWriter (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
There are 4 days left until this topic is probably archived, so I decided to add a new "IMAsymbol" parameter to the mineral infobox template. I have tested the new version of the template in its sandbox with some test cases and it seems to behave correctly. I also did a "live" edit to the Acanthite article, which now displays the IMA symbol "Aca" in its infobox. Therefore, this new infobox parameter is now available for any editor to use when adding the IMA symbol (abbreviation) to any mineral article. GeoWriter (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks for adding the parameter to the infox box and I will follow the format accordingly. One question I have, which was not yet answered ,was where to add the symbol when the infox box is not yet available? There are many mineral pages with text only. Clay1965 (talk 18:11, January 14, 2022 (UTC) Clay1965 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Every mineral ought to have the infobox. But I recognize that's a lot of work. I am okay with you continuing to put the IMA in the article text when there's no infobox; I think I have almost every mineral box on my watchlist (as a result of adding a crystal group category to every mineral article I could find) and I'll likely come along very shortly thereafter and add the infobox. Not a promise -- just a likelihood. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that almost 1700 mineral articles already have an infobox. That is already a lot of potential edits. I recommend that IMA symbols should be added to these articles before adding to the main text of articles without an infobox. Adding the IMA symbol to the main text of an article without an infobox (and then eventually moving that information to an infobox when the article's infobox is created) creates extra editing workload. GeoWriter (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Different MIS stages are differently studied, so not all of them would deserve their own article. I concur that redirecting general MIS articles to regional stratigraphy is weird, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Hemiauchenia has nominated Chicxulub crater 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal
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 FarmTalk17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Stratum
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)
I think they could work as their own separate pages, with Strata about the rock units and Stratigraphy about the study, if we can add more citations and depth to each. If that doesn't end up working out then I would be in favor of merging them. I can probably find some time in the next few days to try and help rescue them, after which it will probably be more clear which route to take. CrunchyRocks (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I like the idea of merging Stratum and Bed - I quickly poked around lone source on Stratum (at Encyclopedia Britannica) and it from what I can tell there's probably enough overlap to justify mashing them together. Unfortunately EB is brief and doesn't cite anything, so I have to dig around a little more to figure out how exactly they would fit together.
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)
According to the American Geosciences Institute's "Glossary of Geology" (2011), a "bed" is a subdivision of a "stratum." Thus, a bed and a stratum are not the same geologic entity with a stratum being composed of / divisible into multiple beds. Paul H. (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The North American Stratigraphic Code has "bed" as the next finest subdivision below "member". I think this more formal definition is the one to go with. Will post on the merger discussion. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The North American Stratigraphic Code only refers to named lithostratigraphic units, e.g. the Corbula bed of the Glen Rose Formation, but not everyday beds recognized in geologic field descriptions / observations. For example, in field descriptions, "bed" refers to unnamed subdivisions of a sedimentary layer (stratum) observed in a outcrop, core, and so forth. The North American Stratigraphic Code definition of "bed" is only used when a person refers to a bed that has distinctive, often unique characteristics, and laterally continuity that can be mapped and named. An example is the before mentioned Corbula bed that can be recognized and mapped over an area of 13,000 sq mi (34,000 km2). To use the North American Stratigraphic Code definition of "bed" in the Stratum article is horribly bad geological science that will only hopelessly confuse people. Paul H. (talk) 20:31, 5 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)
Comments Continued to added to Closed Merger Proposal for Talk:Stratum
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.
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)
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.
I just noticed that Tectonic plate also exists, directing to the list. I think it could make sense to have Tectonic plate direct to Plate tectonics, and Tectonic plates direct to the list, while deleting Tectonic Plates since it's a duplicate that doesn't even follow capitalization conventions. CrunchyRocks (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
That seems as good a solution as any to me. I'd say go ahead and fix the Tectonic plate redirect. Deleting the Tectonic Plates page might qualify for a speedy deletion under WP:RCSD, if you can shoehorn it into R3. Include a comment about this discussion and your rationale in your nomination. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kent G. Budge note that nothing should ever be shoehorned into meeting a speedy deletion criterion. This redirect is also nowhere near meeting the requirements of criterion R3 - it is not an implausible typo or misnomer and it was not recently created (it's existed since 2009). Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The page title violates capitalization conventions and is in conflict with a page title that does not. Sometimes a matter is clear even though it doesn't precisely fit the cubby holes we've erected. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but speedy deletion is only for the things that fit the cubby holes. IMO disambiguating one and redirecting the other to the disambiguation would make more sense than deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:13, 1 February 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)
I dug out Barnes' 1995 Basic Geological Mapping for you, which has patched a couple of key holes in your text.DanHobley (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Internet lists and databases : Using official lists for stubbing
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.
I generally skip citing GEOLEX and go straight to the papers it cites for the history of investigation of a formation. The papers cited are usually pretty good for getting an idea of how our concept of a unit has been shaped. Of course, this is best followed up with a Google Scholar search for more up-to-date material. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kent G. Budge: I realise my context is U.S.-centric and Kansas-centric (and NM-centric and UT-centric) because of my particular focus on and access to the Midcontinent Basin and the Western Interior Basin. My only use of GEOLEX is for first-test notability and citation of type origin. For the latter, I now realise that I can, with a little more effort, cite instead the reference that GEOLEX cites for the type origin. However, even though I am citing the original paper, I would likely use the Significant Publications url= since the 1880s-1920s original paper is often not online. I am hardly constrained to Google Scholar, given the efforts of the above-mentioned state geologists (meaning, I don't have to go to Google Scholar to locate the state and university geology publications). IveGoneAway (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I would discourage anyone from making substubs based on database entries. This activity for geographical places has resulted in a lot of work to check and then delete bogus pages. A mass creation will cause probably more work than the creator put in. Instead you can use the database as a jumping off point to check for literature suitable for references, so that you can see if the unit is notable or even recognised as real. Also please write enough in an article to make it useful for our readers, as mere definitions are not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Making substubs is probably not what I am discussing here. I am typically "pre-merging" member units into their formations and making new stubs only when notable, especially when the subunit has been includes in multiple units (example WIP).
That said, the existing array of NA geological unit stubs has been both USEFULL and INSPIRATIONAL to me; and I would personally hate to see them Draft-deleted (for example). They encouraged my entry into the project, and I think I derive strange enjoyment from correcting and expanding them. In my affore-stated area of interest, I have yet to run into any (that I recall) that I would feel the need to call "bogus". Duplicates? Yes. Obscure, Obsolete, or Informal usage still notable enough for inclusion in some main topic unit? Yes. HARM? No! (IMO)
"Also please write enough in an article to make it useful for our readers, as mere definitions are not useful." Like this? ==> Clearly, I support the goal of full articles for geologic units, but they are super expensive. "Simple definitions" Having run three geology stubs each in 4+year efforts to full DYK status, I am now much more inclined to incremental efforts, especially starting with interlinking stratigraphically related units in their infoboxes. Simple definitions are IMO better than nothing as article starters, and I certainly am not advocating leaving them in that state. WP:PATIENT
Grand Canyon Region - Supai Group and Supai Formation - Possible Merge Needed
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)
The Supai Formation appears to be unreferenced - the supposed reference says nothing about it. Does it exist? Did it perhaps exist and was upgraded to Group status? Geopersona (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Certainly merge. The articles refer to the same stratigraphic unit under different ranks, and this can be noted in the header. It's not at all uncommon for older formations to be raised to group rank in some or all of their outcrop area as they are further studied and subdivided. See, for example, Chinle Formation, which notes that the Chinle is raised to group rank in some of its outcrop areas. In the case of the Supai, my impression from my last visit to Grand Canyon last spring is that it's more commonly regarded as a group. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Later: the writing quality is close to gibberish. I am attempting to copyedit, but I may be introducing errors. — hike395 (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Merge. I typically merge unit pages if the only difference is in rank or in usage of rank vs facies e.g., "Y Formation" vs "Y Limestone" and it is clear that they are covering the same unit, especially if one or both are still stubs. I am not surprised by groups or formations notable enough to have changes in rank within their extent. The only cavate would be sure to assess reasons for the duplication; one may be just a simple mistake, e.g., a source casually calling a unit a "Formation" when it actually has not been formally classified at that rank. If one title is a mistake or otherwise not at all notable, I probably wouldn't mention it in the merge result.
Nothing in present Supai Formation justifies a separate page; but "As more information from reliable sources is gathered on the formation, a point may be reached where it makes sense to split the formation into its own article." IveGoneAway (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The only question, really, is whether there is any chance at all that a merge would be disputed. If so, we have to go through the formal merge process. If the merge is uncontroversial -- and I think it should be -- then we can simply be bold and turn Supai Formation into a redirect to Supai Group, possibly with a brief explanation on [[Talk::Supai Formation]]. I see nothing at Supai Formation that needs to be preserved. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and converted Supai Formation to a redirect. If someone gets a burr in their saddle and reverts, we'll go through the formal merge proposal process. I'm guessing at least an even chance that won't happen. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I just thought to check GEOLEX. :)= Supai was/is a multistate formation for some time, but has been promoted to group in the Grand Canyon region. This history should be at least acknowledged in the main topic. Compare with the sample-bags-in-a-wad in Talk:Dakota Group. I wonder if I have pictures. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I summarized some of the GEOLEX history at the Supai Group article, in part to provide a Supai Formation redirect target. So the lead now mentions its placement both at group and formation stratigraphic rank, depending on region. The article still needs a lot of work, though. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Link to commercial and fringe web page being added to Wikipedia geology articles
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)
Scratch hardness
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)
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.
Wikipedia Notability Criteria for Rock-stratigraphic Units
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)
I would add that if a topic unit name is real, but fails an individual judgement of notability, I have a strong preference for merge-and-redirect as oppose to simple delete. I think that every actual unit name, even vernacular or abandoned, at least belongs with another unit, whether as subunit or correlating name. But, only mentioned in one paper in one county? Maybe not so much ... but, IMO, it is incumbent upon a deleter to confirm that the name is not in the literature, at least that is my personal standard for deletion of a rock unit.
I also I make a case for pages for member and bed rank units that are subunits of multiple notable units if it hard to answer which superunit to cover it in. WDYT?
Making the notability break at formation rank, but only when multiple independent sources accept the unit as a valid formation, is an okay rule of thumb. As someone pointed out a while back, if Wikipedia can have an article for every celebrity, minor politician, train station, highway, and village with more than ten houses or twenty goats, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an article for every formation for which there is enough published information to at least fill out the infobox. But I likely wouldn't make a separate article for a formation that is hardly ever mentioned outside its group, though I'd like a redirect to a mention of the formation in the group article. Likewise, some members are so notable that they deserve their own article, though such members often end up being raised to formation stratigraphic rank somewhere in their exposure area anyway. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, formations are the basic unit of geology, so they deserve a page in most situations unless they are used as a very obscure subunit of an already obscure geologic group. Whenever that is the case, a redirect is always the best option over a simple deletion, in my opinion. We also have to consider that these levels are not always used consistently. For example, in New Mexico, Chinle strata is generally named to the group level with individual subunits named as formations, while in Arizona it is considered a formation with the subunits named as members. In my opinion this is a clear example where individual "members" are worthy of their own page, since they are well-described in the literature and represent unique geological and paleontological conditions exclusive to the other subunits. This situation is similar to what you see on paleontology articles, which use genera as a fundamental unit. Only in rare circumstances are individual species given their own page, such as species of Mammuthus, Homo, Panthera, etc. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there anything we would want to add to the policy at this time?
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Fair cop. Yet, I have not really encountered anything that didn't follow the code, and I learned the code through working with the existing pages and stubs with no knowledge of the essay.
An aspect of geologic units is that each is defined in terms of comparison with units above and below as well as horizontal correlation of facies changes, or name changes with no facies change. This is supported by unit stubs, even more so when the stubs at least have links to the correlating units.
Let me give a more thoughtful response than my earlier humorous one.
I wrote most of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability, following a discussion here of some very poorly sourced articles on possible impact structures. I included some thoughts on what sources can be considered reliable, and I incorporated the idea from an earlier discussion here that formation rank is the presumptive cutoff for individual articles, assuming multiple reliable sources accept the validity of the formation. I added some additional thoughts about extinction events, because there had also been some discussion, not long before I started the essay, on fringe explanations for some extinction events. There wasn't a whole lot of discussion of the essay at the time, which I think reflected some measure of consensus that the essay was not too far off from what most of us considered reasonable. Of course, anyone can modify the essay contents at any time, though getting consensus first on its talk page or here at the project first would be a good idea.
There are several levels of enforcement of Wikinorms. The most common and preferred is building of consensus among editors. An essay like Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability can help shape our ideas on what best practices are for creating and editing articles on geologic topics. It has no other binding authority unless it becomes accepted as a formal policy. In those unfortunate cases where consensus building fails and administrator intervention is required, the administrator is not going to feel bound by an essay, though it might help shape the discussion, if it's clear that the essay reflects a genuine longstanding consensus.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: notes (if I've understood correctly) that the notability essay does seem to reflect common practice, which I find encouraging. @Fanboyphilosopher: notes that formations are the fundamental unit of stratigraphy and suggests this makes them presumptively worth their own articles, and draws a good analogy with practice on taxonomy articles. What "fundamendal unit of stratigraphy" means, among other things, is that formations are not necessarily assigned to groups or groups to supergroups, but members are always assigned to formations (at least in my experience; I'd have to check the stratigraphic codes to be sure this is a hard rule) which also seems to argue for formations as the presumptive cutoff. And it is presumptive. Even if the promotion of the Chinle to group rank in New Mexico were deprecated, I think a consensus could be reached that the Shinarump Conglomerate should be an exception to the usual formation rank cutoff. On the other hand, had the formations of the Supai Group not already had their own articles stubbed out, I would be in no rush to create them. Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
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.
I have it activated for my username and find it useful. The chief limitation I've encountered is that it flags (as warning) links to researchgate. I understand the reasons for that (one _should_ be careful using that repository) but just as a point of information. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:57, 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)
It's not listed in the USGS lexicon either. I've noticed a tendency for formation names in general to go from descriptive (Kettle Point Shale) to ranked (Kettle Point Formation) in more recent publications, so my guess is that Kettle Point Formation would be the more common modern usage. If that's the trend you're seeing in publications, I'd suggest being bold and making the move. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it goes without saying, but, on the safe side, keep whichever one that is not the page title as a redirect, and mention in the page uses that appear in the literature.
Is there any chance the term is abandoned or informal? Not that that particularly means any reduction in notability, but may mean connection to the replacement or formal term. I have learned to check for current usage even if an old name has many old citations.
I have encountered situations where a unit's original name emphasized the shale, but as the research into the member structures grew, emphasis seems to shift to the formation status; yet, using the shale name continues informally to refer specifically to the shale bedding distinct from the non-shale bedding (c.f., upper/lower Wellington shales or Lawrence Shale).
Generally in these types of situations I use the name which is most common in the literature (from an informal count of google scholar results), since for many lithological units there is not an agreed-upon 'official' name. I've found that "Kettle Point Formation" has four times as many results as "Kettle Point Shale", so a move is certainly warranted. The Canadian federal sources seem to agree. Still, it may be a good idea to put both names in the lead paragraph, especially if the name options are very close in popularity (though that probably does not apply here). Something along the lines of "The Kettle Point Formation, originally named as the Kettle Point Shale, is a geological..." Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I found "Kettle Point Formation" in the Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units (by doing a search for all units in Ontario). The formation's web page in the lexicon is: https://weblex.canada.ca/html/007000/GSCC00053007547.html The same search did not find "Kettle Point Shale"', which suggests to me that the Canadian formal name is Kettle Point Formation. GeoWriter (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to address a couple of points I see in the last few posts, but I am catching a series of flights and meetings today. @Fanboyphilosopher: I would not say "originally named" without explicit citation to establish the accertation, otherwise, an "or" might suffice. And majority is not always enough; the possibility of change in rank or usage over time or distance should be assessed -- I still haven't cracked Talk:Colorado Group.IveGoneAway (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 23:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC) 19:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Soil, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team
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)
Is figure for Conception Group article a Wikipedia copyright policy violation?
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.
The "own work" at least is correct, as G.J. Retallack appears to be the person who put it there. However, I kind of doubt that Elsevier agrees the author still has the right to publish this image. I would take this up with Wikimedia commons, just to be sure. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:52, 17 May 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)
For the moment, I suggest you add a paragraph to the Pebas Formation article mentioning the Solimoes Formation by name (as subject of a redirect, it needs to be mentioned on the target page in bold per WP:BOLD) and citing some of the sources arguing that it is a separate formation. For balance, if there are some still arguing the contrary, they need to be cited as well. If the balance of opinion is that it is a separate formation, and you can find multiple independent reliables sources that discuss it as such, we can then split off its own article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The Mineralogical Record
Resolved
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. PamD05:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mikenorton: Thanks: I found that earlier today and have sent off a request. But Peter H has died, so I'll have to hope that RG still has a contact info for Simone. I was a bit slow in realising that I'd been calling her the wrong name - have now moved the article to Eleonore von Raab and found a few more references to her at that name! PamD11:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: Brilliant, thanks: a helpful editor at WP:RX has sent me the article, from which I've already sourced an image of Eleonore and will be able to expand the article content. And I'll remember WP:RX for future use. There's always something new to learn about editing Wikipedia. PamD07:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Renaming "Vredefort crater" article
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)
I think this is right, and I'd be tempted to suggest being bold and just making the move. But there's a fair chance someone will raise a fuss, and then you'll have to go through the formal move process, so perhaps it would be just as well to skip to that. I'll support. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd support moving to "Vredefort impact structure", I think that's clearer, and the terms appears to be used in the literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking over the article, I'd go with User:Hemiauchenia's suggestion. The Vredefort Dome is part of the Vredefort impact structure, but there is apparently more to the impact structure than just the dome. I'm going to go ahead and put up the move proposal accordingly. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, After reading through your comments and being somewhat wishy-washy, I changed my mind, I will vote for "Vredefort impact structure". Paul H. (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
There are still more astroblemes that need to be changed. One that comes to mind is Rochechouart crater, which at least already acknowledges that is not a crater in the lead, but the prose could do with tightening. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 26 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 took a look at the draft and the associated pair of references, and this is actually a pretty fascinating bit of geology. It's the type for a eruptive laccolith, where the laccolith broke out to the surface as a caldera eruption. I think this is sufficiently notable for its own article and Google Scholar turned up some additional papers. The draft needs a lot of work, though. I'll put some time into it as I have opportunity. Others welcome to pitch in. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Kent, thank you. I couldn't find anything else but I searched for the complete phrase, knowing that the results would be limited. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 22:02, 28 July 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)
Nobody cares about portals. They've been moribund for years and many have already been deleted because nobody uses them. Wikiprojects are mostly useful as a place where interested editors gather and discuss. This Wikiproject serves as a useful place to discuss all earth sciences related topics, there is no need to create another Wikiproject to divide discussion amongst the already small set of editors who frequent here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure what the issue with a useful portal would be.@Hemiauchenia I believe a lot of the issue was the excessive creation of sub-standard portals that were auto-generated or lacked substance. I see portals as modular gateways to a topic that provides a pleasing interface in lieu of an index, list, or category page. Many very long articles on general topics are often easier to navigate by simply visiting the relevant portal instead.
Having Earth Sciences like Climate, Atmospheric science, and the like managed by the Geology project just makes things confusing imho. If there does not seem to be people interested in geology than it would make sense to just change it to the Earth science project. With doing so it would also be likely that all the other earth science subtopics would be similar and therefore be merged into the project as well.
I do not feel this is the case though. I believe that there is good reason to have a portal and project for each major branch of earth sciences in order to ensure focus and encourage participation. If a topic is too general, it can seem overwhelming and discourage participation. By keeping it more specific (but not too specific) it allows more manageable tasks. Terrickisaiah555[T]/[C]18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Nobody cares about portals. Nobody reads them. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_189#Proposal_to_change_portal_links_on_the_Main_Page. You are not an active contributor to this projects talkpage or any other projects talkpage. You have less than 500 contributions to Wikipedia total over having been here over one year. You obviously have no actual experience of how Wikiprojects work. There are only a handful of editors who actively edit and discuss the earths sciences. You are seemingly completely clueless about the fact that there are a fuckton of completely dead wikiprojects. This is one of the handful of Wikiprojects that actually active. There is no need to create more dead on arrival Wikiprojects. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, I care about portals and am somebody therefore I consider your first statement nullified. I don't see you really adding any new information and simply see this as an ad hominem argument. Responses as yours likely have a lot to do with the lack of project participation which you seem to be using as a reason against my argument. @Hemiauchenia
By participating in this conversation I believe it counts as activity in the project. I plan on continuing activities in this project as well. The reason for adding myself is for being sent notifications to assist in participation. I may not have your level of experience yet in activity on Wikipedia however assuming I am not condescended or chastised for my opinion I may yet reach that level one day. I will mention that I am quite familiar with project and task management in general outside of Wikipedia having managed a complex real-time product distribution service.
In regards to the large amount of inactive WikiProjects, that could be considered a being a possible result of being two generalized and not having a scope that one studying a particular subfield might want to participate in. A dendrologist may not want to necessarily be a part of a huge Earth science project and might want something a bit more specific that seems more manageable.
As long as each project is thoughtfully considered on a case by case basis, I think there is potential to increase usage while increasing the specificity over time with more membership. Terrickisaiah555[T]/[C]19:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The meaning of stone
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)
You are right, this is stupid. The answer is I think a new article on clast, distinct from clastic rock - though the topics clearly massively overlap and both articles would need significant attention... A separate article would be warranted on other grounds as well as just stone (disambiguation) - now you've brought it up, I recall this redirect has previously irritated me. The easy answer would be to pirate the relevant bits out of Clastic rock for a new article, but this is IIUC frowned upon. Trying to move stuff out of clastic rock and refer to clast would be better, but probably controversial... DanHobley (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
2022 Open Access paper reviewing terrestrial impact record
The below open access paper should be useful for working with Wikipedia articles about impact craters.
Ruebsam, W. and Schwark, L., 2021. Impact of a northern-hemispherical cryosphere on late Pliensbachian–early Toarcian climate and environment evolution. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 514(1), pp.359-385.
I think I am the only person here who remotely qualifies as a "Jurassic expert" having wrote the article on it. As far as I tell, the idea that the first half of the Early Jurassic was a relatively cool period is widely accepted. The idea that the Pleinsbachian was glaciated seems to be relatively recent. I don't have any idea how much of a consensus there is for it, though there is clearly some support. I think there's been enough literature on it to maybe merit it's inclusion on the article, but I don't have a strong view about this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Nadir crater
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)
FWIW, based on my experience of interpreting this kind of data, the evidence presented makes a good case for an impact origin. I would classify it as probable but unconfirmed on the proposed marine impact crater identification template created by Tsikalas and Eldholm (2019) Figure 5. Your rewriting, however, was certainly required and now shows a reasonable balance between speculation and evidence. If it's ever drilled by the IODP we'll know for sure. Mikenorton (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Giant current ripples VS submarine dunes
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)
My understanding is that there is not any difference. For example Burr et al. (2002:59) states:
"Thus, despite their name (from Bretz et al. 1956), “giant current ripples” are not true ripples, which are only responsive to boundary conditions, but sub-aqueous dunes, which are responsive to the hydraulic flow (Yalin 1972, pp. 217–231). In more recent work, therefore, fluvial sedimentologists (e.g., Carling 1996) have classified such features as giant dunes, gravel dunes, or transverse dunes."
The majority of the papers that I have found about Martian “giant current ripples” call them either "transverse dunes" or "aqueous dunes."
References Cited
Bretz, J. H., H. T. U. Smith, and G. E. Neff 1956. Channeled Scabland of Washington: New data and interpretations. Geolog. Soc. Amer. Bull. 67, 957–1049.
Extrapolating from these answers, is a separate article on giant current ripples even worth having, or should we instead be writing one on subaqueous dunes and then merge the current article into that? I guess they could be considered as a separate thing in the context of large flooding events, but is that alone enough to sustain an entire article? --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:57, 31 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 FarmTalk15:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Hike395: originally added the tag, so they should perhaps give their view on the current version of the article. My own view is that it's still short of citations. Mikenorton (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The tag came from a discussion in 2018 with Dudley Miles about whether continents formed in the Archean or the Hadean. I did some research and found support for Archean, although each specific continental hypothesis seemed to be hotly debated (unsurprising, given how long ago this was). I removed a number of unsupported statements in the article. However, I'm not an expert on such deep history. I was hoping that someone with more expertise could step in and double-check my work. We can remove the tag, unless Dudley objects. — hike395 (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Later: I just found a fascinating 2021 review article about models of continent formation and ocean volume.[1] Looks like we might have to rewrite parts of Hadean and Archean. — hike395 (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not think that the article still needs a maintenance tag. Of course it needs updating, as Hike says, but that applies to most articles. My query was specifically about a contradiction between the lead and the main text, which has been fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the name Early Palaeozoic Ice Age is most appropriate, although that name isn't that common either. The articles definitely needed to be merged though; they were all about the same glacial event and two of those articles were stubs with only a handful of references. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Obduction: misleading image showing an accretionary wedge
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:
An example of obduction: while most of the oceanic crust subducts below the continental crust down into the mantle, part of the crust is obducted, pushed onto the continental crust, forming an accretionary prism.
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.
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)
I disagree with merging Drift (geology) withTill. First, they are two different types of sediments. Drift (glacial drift) is a general term for all varieties of rock debris and sediment deposited by ice sheets. It can consist of and is subdivided into stratified drift (sorted and stratified clay, silt, sand, or gravel deposited by meltwater in stream channels, or in marginal lakes associated glaciers); and till (an unstratified mixture of sediments ranging in size from clay to boulders that is deposited directly from the ice). Till is a subtype of drift. Second, glacial drift, unlike boulder clay, is still widely used in the literature around the world. It is not a regional synonym and still is a notable term in both past and present usage. Finally, there is enough material available for a valid Wikipedia article about drift. Paul H. (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with the proposed merging of till and boulder clay for the reasons set out and agree too that drift needs to be kept separate. I'd note in passing that diamicton is sometimes loosely used interchangeably with till, though the distinctions outside of casual use are important enough to keep that one separate too. thanks Geopersona (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Weird Order of Magnitude Spikes in Visitor Hits to Missoula Floods and Lake Missoula Articles
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.
Spikes like this are usually caused by reddit posts and the like. A popular video on the topic came out the fornight before [5], which may have prompted whatever caused the spike. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
In memoriam: Kent G. Budge
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)
I am so sorry to hear this news. Most of us here on WP never know one another other than by passing edits and talk page comments. RIP, fellow editor KGB - your many, many excellent contributions live on for the benefit of countless unknown future readers. Geopersona (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I was amazed by his ability to take on quite complex topics in geology and really do them justice. He will be sorely missed. Mikenorton (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The First 100 IUGS Geological Heritage Sites
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)
That seems a reasonable bit of text to add more generally - it might also be a good idea to set up a relevant category for all the articles. Mikenorton (talk) 13:14, 2 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)
Some good stuff there I think, although I've not found any links of particular use yet. I've added some of the links that Geopersona found to other wikis. Mikenorton (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Update: I've placed text in the existing articles (as identified by Mike and listed in sandbox) for the first 42 or so sites, having created new stubs for Mount Napak and Mawmluh Cave. I'll continue this until I get to 100, minus any that have already been attended to, and continuing to create such new article stubs as it may require. Do we then want an article titled 'IUGS geological heritage site' (or similar, with/without caps etc) - thoughts? cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
There are some news sources, but they are generally trumpeting the inclusion of their particular national sites in the list. We could make a list article, based around the sandbox, which would for now perhaps be better as a subpage to WP Geology. As an alternative we could simply create a category. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I created a category once but can't now recall how to do it! Sounds like a useful idea though. Equally I'd anticipate the geo-press starting to cover the IUGS initiative. Geopersona (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Category now created and there are 92 pages in it. I've not added any pages that don't mention the geology at all and then there's the few missing articles or article sections. Mikenorton (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Possible AFD - proposed impact structure based on uncovention techniques and only two sets of authors
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.
Use of GEBCO_2022 Grid data in Wikipedia illustrations for geology articles
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)
Merge proposal/process (nominated oil & gas sector articles)
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)
Inconsistent temporal ranges on the time scale templates vs. stage articles
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)
Reliable source discussion about impact structures list
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)
Thanks for reporting this. It prompted me to read the Kaveri article and I found that almost all of the original Kaveri Crater article's text that was merged into the Kaveri article is a copy/paste copyright violation of one of the text's cited source references. Therefore, I have added a copyvio template to the relevant text in the Kaveri article. GeoWriter (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I looked through Google Scholar, GEOREF, and so forth, and found that Kaveri crater is still only based upon the same Journal of the Geological Society of India paper. I found a lack of any second or third party evaluation of the Kaveri crater. It does not seem worth bothering with rewriting and likely it can be simply deleted from Kaveri article without any significant loss. By the way, a PDF of this paper can be found on Researchgate. An open access comment on the impact craters of India can also be downloaded online, but does not help. Paul H. (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:year-end 2022 summary
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:
222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.
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.
Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
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):
Biology
Physics and astronomy
Warfare
Video gaming
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
Literature and theatre
Engineering and technology
Religion, mysticism and mythology
Media
Geology and geophysics
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.
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.
Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.
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.
FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject
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)
Since you are the only person who wrote the draft, I would simply copy-paste your version at the destination. To me, your version seems strictly better than the current version. Once you've copied it over, I may do a wee bit of rescue of some facts from the old version (recognizing that the whole "old" vs "new" history in the current version appears to violate WP:NPOV). — hike395 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! after some final edits I now performed the replacement, so your rescuing operation can commence. I will likely be adding a few more updates later myself. EDIT: one more question: Shall I remove the article from the list of articles needing immediate attention? Licks-rocks (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Gulf of Mexico article fringe text proposing that it is an impact crater
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:
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 FarmTalk05:20, 5 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)
Hmm no, I can't find enough to make it an article, most of what I do see seem to be clear examples of citogenesis --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I found a list of and figure showing firsballs reported by the US Government sensors for April 15, 1988, to February 19, 2023. Looking at the list and figure, the "2002 Vitim event" at 2 / 4-5 (?) kilotons is not anything special and completely lacks any notability. Looking at the list, there are much larger events of this type that have occurred. The "2002 Vitim event" is quite small compared to the largest known event, 440 kilotons, which happed February 15, 2013. Paul H. (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
A single-purpose editor, requests that the fringe "“Davias” hypothesis" be added to the Carolina Bay article based only on primary sources.
@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.
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)
Hmmm but geothermal energy is just the economic branch. I do think the topic on its own is also E, Unless we have another article somewhere that summarises all the different forms of geothermal activity that I'm unaware of. (I checked Hydrothermal activity, but that one's just a redirect.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If you don't object to it being expanded and there's no other article that covers the same content I described, I will start work on expanding it into an acceptable state. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Neither article has a real focus on the natural phenomenons associated with an hydrothermally/geothermally active area though? --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It's the name of a mineral. The name of the mineral would be the purview of WP:GEOLOGY no? The formatting of names of minerals would then go by the prescribed naming method used for minerals, where many science fields have their own peculiar grammer unrelated to that used by English teachers. Thus, does the field of geology use an M-dash in the naming of this mineral, or is our article misnamed? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense! in that case: the IMA classification uses a short dash, so I would certainly support a move on those grounds. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:56, 29 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)
2023 ICS chronostratigraphic chart update
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)
Discussion about Notability and Primary sources in talk:Fossil
If you aren't confused, you should be - the premise of the discussion is perceptual. We shouldn't be discussing whether a secondary source (a peer reviewed published scientific paper) employs primary data (which almost all scientific papers do unless they are completely derivative summaries, which are rare). We should only have that discussion about Wikipedia content. The discussion over-reaches the Wikipedia mandate, I believe. Geneus01 (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Not that I can find. In the latest AGI Glossary of Geology, as defined in the Pacific Ocean, a "low island" is specially defined as "...a coralline rather than a volcanic island." In contrast, a "high island" in the Pacific Ocean, refers to a volcanic island. Paul H. (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree that they should be merged to the latter name. It's finally jogged by memory to make a move request for moving High island to "Volcanic island" for the same reasons. Mikenorton (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
added a merge template linking to this discussion. I agree with the suggested merge. Fun case of synonymous definitions! ----Licks-rocks (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
This really looks good, and I would approve this being implemented. The improved contrast with the text improves the legibility noticeably. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I can live with it as well, but the yellow-coloured periods are a bit of an issue with this style, because the yellow border almost vanishes against the background.not sure how to solve that 🤔 --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
One possibility is in Proposal 2, where for those light period colors, we fill the boxes with the color and use black borders? It would fix the problem you mention, but would cause an inconsistency between different time spans. What do you think? — hike395 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Design looks good, I think having a consistent look would be best, maybe increasing the borders to 3px could help with the paler colours. EdwardUK (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The 3px lines look too much to me for the darker colors. We could use 3px for the lighter colors and 2px for the darker ones -- I think that kind of inconsistency would be acceptable. — hike395 (talk) 11:22, 18 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)
Looks great! I had thought about trying something like that for the the geologic timespan infobox but didn't try it. Solves the problem of having to color the text manually, which can be a bit of a pain. Benniboi01 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Candidate for AFD - "Inverted Earth"
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)
I think you might want to take it to wikiproject art for a bit? seems more notable as an artwork than a geological thought experiment to me. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:32, 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)
@NT at Umbra: It's not necessarily true to claim that Umbra will get no credit if an image of yours is used in an article. If someone associated with Umbra uploads satellite images on Wikimedia Commons they can select an appropriate license to use. Once an image has been uploaded on Wikimedia Commons it can be used in Wikipedia articles. Volcanoguy22:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@NT at Umbra:Articles about different types of landforms and geologic features certainly can use digital elevation models constructed from synthetic-aperture radar, to illustrate classic examples of them. Such DEMs overlain with satellite imagery would be fantastic. Paul H. (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Naweed: This sounds great for imaging some inaccessible places that our Earth-bound photographers would not be able to get to. For example a piece of exhumed mantle: Macquarie Island at 54.63°S 158.86°E which is 35 by 5 km. Is that too large? Mount Melbourne is a featured article on a volcano in Antarctica at 74°21′S 164°42′E (is that too far south?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Graeme, that's a great idea. Our scene size is currently 4x4 km with resolution options of 25cm, 35cm, and 1 meter. We could image a specific area on the island. I tasked our birds to image Mt. Melbourne. Feel free to continue sending coordinates as well of other places you'd like to image. If you're interested, you can also check out other images in our open dataset. NT at Umbra (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Graeme Bartlett, Here's the link to the 35 cm SAR image of Mt. Melbourne. If it's not the area you wanted to see of the mountain, let me know the exact coordinates and I can take another image. NT at Umbra (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
New article about putative Malaysian impact structure needs review
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.
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)
Font size and bar width consistency in period graphical timelines
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 GPlates maps
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)
Also, for long geological time periods where the paleogeography is likely to have changed substantially over the course of the period, it doesn't make sense to pick a single map to be representative of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually, now that i think about it I will replace them with a new set that accurately reflects ancient coastlines and the such. Sammy2012 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, these are much better than most other options we've had previously. One suggestion I have is to use two different shades of blue, to differentiate deep ocean basins (non-continental seas) from epeiric basins (epicontinental seas). Labels of important continents and microcontinents would also be a great addition. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:20, 21 August 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)
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)
Interesting call - I agree; what is in this article at the moment is paired down (simple scoping) but some may argue sufficient. I should caution you that all geologist love maps (can you call yourself one if you don't?) and can write endlessly about spatial attributes, largely because Earth's geology moves through geological time and knowing when you are has significance for where you are. Geologists have been using GIS inspired techniques since Alfred Wegener's first formalised Continental drift in 1912, later to evolve into Plate tectonics on the discovery of a spreading system in the early 1960s. My guess is that you have an engineering orientation (infrastructure related) - and yet you raised this question on a geological platform - how deep down a rabbit hole are you prepared to go? Some may argue that we are already covered, you only need a narrative to guide you on where to look because all the elements are already presented in Wikipedia. But maybe you have other ideas (along with other geoscientists who contribute to this forum). Geneus01 (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Articles on mineral groups
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.
I think this makes a lot of sense. A fuller article can always be written on individual species if there is enough to say, but having articles on the groups can provide some basic context. LadyofShalott15:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Afd for Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 13 (Philippines)
Separate articles for Midway Group and Midway Formation, Gulf of Mexico Coast Plain
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?
That is if Midway Formation and Midway Group are two different stratigraphic units. I'm aware some groups get downgraded to formations while some formations get upgraded to groups. Volcanoguy13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Separate articles for Wilcox Group and Wilcox Formation, Gulf of Mexico Coast Plain
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?
As with the Midway in the previous section merge formation in to group - Geolex has "Group" from 1923 onwards, with "Formation" earlier. That other unit is mesoproterozoic in age, so maybe not redirect if we think that an article could be written on the older unit. Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I found enough sources to prepare an article on the current usage for the Mesoproterozoic "Wilcox Formation" and will work on it. In addition, I can prepare a second section about the former usage of "Wilcox Formation" for the Paleogene strata currently known as the "Wilcox Group" with a link to it. Paul H. (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hellenic Trench and related articles
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)
I think this is a case like Mount Rinjani and 1257 Samalas eruption, where the name of a sub-entity (Rinjani) is applied to the entire entity (the Samalas-Rinjani complex) even though we are discussing a different sub-entity (Samalas, since the active Barujari cone and the Segara Anak caldera are part of Samalas). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, but all three are necessary as separate articles, even if they overlap to some extent. My issue is that at least two of the articles are in a poor state ("trench" and "arc") and I have encountered problems in the past with another editor who has quite reasonably pointed out that there are multiple RS that equate the trench with the subduction zone, even if that makes no sense with the Mediterranean Ridge being an accretionary complex, which no-one seems to deny. The papers that show the trench as the surface expression of the subduction zone are in virtually every case not about the subduction zone's shallow geometry and just ignore the Mediterranean Ridge completely. I guess that it's just "received wisdom" and using what they've read in earlier papers. What makes it particularly galling is that Xavier Le Pichon was the first to identify the trench as the surface expression of the subduction zone back in 1979, but he changed his mind as soon as he looked at the Mediterranean Ridge in 1982, recognising it as an accretionary complex and placing the surface expression of the subduction zone south of the ridge. Despite this, a large minority of geoscientists have continued to use his first interpretation. Nearly 40 years later in 2019 he wrote "Although we call it the Hellenic subduction zone, this should not be confused with the Hellenic trench. This so-called trench is a forearc structure, as most of the basin to its south is covered by the huge eastern Mediterranean Ridge which is an accretionary complex", so he's well aware of the problem. Rewriting those two articles ("trench" and "arc") while honouring the sources and keeping the editor that previously rewrote them onside is my issue. Mikenorton (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2023 (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)
Resolved
17:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Done --- removed image and mention of accretionary wedge. If experts in plate tectonics disagree with this edit, please feel free to revert. — hike395 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Kent was a very helpful member of this Wikiproject. I can't believe he's gone. We will miss him. — hike395 (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
.svg)
Implemented — hike395 (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
