Talk:List of tectonic plates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Geology (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon List of tectonic plates is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Earthquakes (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Earthquakes, a project to systematically present information on earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Now here's a sensible list. There are two kinds of useful list. one is a complete list like this one. The other is a selective list. Wetman 19:27, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Australian / Indian plates[edit]

I have redirected Australian Plate and Indian Plate to Indo-Australian Plate. I haven't changed pages linking to these two pages as yet, in case someone wants to write separate pages - I thought I would leave it to someone who knows what they are talking about! But in the meantime at least the reader will find the most relevant information on wikipedia, rather than a blank page. -- Chuq 03:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Some literature refers to the plates separately, whereas, other literature refers to them as combined. Looking at the earthquake distribution map shows an extremely weak separation and thus an explanation. I see that the map has been resized downward which I can understand, however, this substantially reduces the visability of the connection between the earthquake distribution and the plate boundaries. I realize the map can be blown up by clicking on it but it's having the earthquake map and the plate map side by side that provides the real picture. Perhaps, a better visualization could be obtained by enlarging the earthquake map somewhat and placing both maps side by side at the bottom of the page. It would also help if some clever person could make the maps align. The left boundary of the earthquake map is 180 degrees west longitude basically the International Date Line, whereas, the left boundary of the plate map is further to the west.

Reference[edit]

Hi. Both links to the reference (HTML/PDF) do not work. Either the link has changed (and therefore needs fixing by whoever can find it) or they took it off. --Thogo (Talk) 22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, found it myself and fixed it. --Thogo (Talk) 06:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusing part[edit]

Can anyone (with enough knowledge of this topic) re-write the next phrase to make it more clear?

"There may or may not be scientific consensus as to whether a tertiary plate is a separate plate yet, is still a separate plate, or should be considered a separate plate, thus new research could change this list."

To me, "is a separate plate yet" and "is still a separate plate" are the same thing.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not the same. The difference is if a plate is *already* or *still* a separate plate, so if it is in the state of birth or death, so to speak. ;) But you're right, the wording is not optimal... I'll guess of something better. What about "In some cases there is no scientific consensus as to whether or not a tertiary plate should be already or still considered a separate plate, thus new research could change this list." ? --Thogo (Talk) 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Thogo! English is not my native language but I use quite a lot at work. So, I apologize if I am taking too much from your time. From your explanation I distinguish 3 situations:
"it is a separate plate yet" = it is the end of a separate plate, it is about to disappear
"it is still a separate plate" = it is the beginning of the formation of a separate plate
"it is a separate plate" = it is currently a stable separate plate
Please, correct me if my understanding is wrong. Thanks again! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Indian Plate, secondary or tertiary?[edit]

Is the Indian Plate a secondary or tertiary plate? It is certainly as big (and, in a number of cases, bigger) than some of the secondary plates. What is it that defines a plate as "secondary" or "tertiary"? ask123 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Areas[edit]

I came here looking for information about the areas of the tectonic plates. It seems like the sort of information that ought to appear in an encyclopedia article. Here's a source: http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blplate_size_table.htm. Would it be a good addition? Ishboyfay (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)