Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

Geological time

The articles and templates on en.wiki have geochronological units and chronostratigraphic units completely mixed up. There is a geochron template that divides a period into the rocks of the erathem, for example. The template should be removed from all articles. I chastised an editor for creating stubs with the wrong terms for period/eras/ages, but how can she get it correct if she's using en.wiki for the information? Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please put in a link to the template, there are too many. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Quaternary, I reworded the top line for consistency with the content. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is now consistent within the template, but the template is used in articles to describe the Quaternary Period, not the rocks of the Quaternary System. This is why I didn't change it, too much work.

The Holocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Period links to articles about Holocene subdivisions called, periods instead of ages, and these are referenced to these wikipedia articles all over the place. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Geological time period capitalization

The various articles are inconsistent with respect to capitalization with on time units. Per ICS the International Stratigraphic Guide, Chapter 9. Chronostratigraphic Units:

A formal chronostratigraphic unit is given a binomial designation - a proper name plus a term-word - and the initial letters of both are capitalized. Its geochronologic equivalent uses the same proper name combined with the equivalent geochronologic term, e.g., Cretaceous System - Cretaceous Period.

I have modified the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic articles for consistency as well as Template:Geological era. Will pause a bit for reaction/comments before continuing. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is spot on. Neither Vsmith nor other editors should hesitate to fix proper name capitalization. --Bejnar (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
• Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Replace "Other articles" subsection

A lot of the content of the "7.3 Other articles" section on the main WikiProject Geology page really belongs on this talk page. Much of it is old and no longer applicable. I suggest replacing it with a new subsection "7.3 Requested articles" and putting in a note at the beginning of the "7. Articles in need of work" section saying: Articles most in need of attention are rated Low on the project assessment page. Please list suggested improvements for a specific article on its own talk page. Requests for help with an article should be placed on this project's talk page. The existing "7.3 Other articles" material can be placed here on the talk page and eventually be archived. Comments requested. --Bejnar (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I too have been thinking something needs to be done about this section. It is so bloated and there is no mechanism for retiring tasks. Definitely most article requests should be made on the talk page. Also, the {{todo}} template in Open tasks and guidelines could be replaced by a {{tasks}} template, which already has entries for FA and GA candidates as well as most of the other tasks people are requesting. One point about your suggestion: Low refers to the importance, which would indicate it's not a high priority. We should concentrate on high- or top-importance articles that are rated "stub" or "start". RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RockMagnetist is correct, it is really the Top and High importance articles that are rated stub, start and C quality that need the work. There are 188 of them today by my count, from Geochemistry to Subduction, including Rock cycle Pangaea and Rocky Mountains. --Bejnar (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Other articles needing work - old

Here is the discussion of other articles needing work that accumulated on the Project page. It is placed here for review, and will eventually be archived off this talk page. Much of this is no longer relevent as the articles have been edited. --Bejnar (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to tidy up the Project page. Hopefully it will now be easier to identify tasks. Nwhit (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Various forms of water ice should not be confused with Ice-nine, a fictional material appearing in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle, that freezes at 114.4F Wikidity (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But, can you be sure? :-) Geologist (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Vonnegut modeled Ice-nine after Daniel Carleton Gajdusek's description of the mechanism of the disease kuru (see [1]). — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cyclic Salt is partially and superficially explained.
  Wikidity (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Geology of Japan - for such a geologically active country, I am very surprised that contains very little information. It's clearly in need of expansion. Ivolocy (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Forensic geology - this aricle has multiple issues but covers an interesting topic. I'm not a wikipedian, much less a member of WikiProject Geology, just thought I'd let the experts know about this article.--193.126.165.208 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Andean orogeny - this classical example of orogeny is lacking an article. All school/university kids go around crazy over the internet trying to find information about this, just to find references to non-free books, over-specific scientific articles and rather obscure university websites that try to catch the google searchs-let's give them a blow in the face! -- Dentren | ^Talk 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pages needing attention (Geology)
• Subduction currently okay, however structure of the article needs work. Also lacks information regarding theories of subduction initiation which strikes me as a neccessary addition. As stated on the talk page the current graphic is incorrect (even though it appears to be supplied by the USGS) I'm currently working on a replacement but its going to take a little more time (finals for the next 2 weeks) ClimberDave 10:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Palaeo-Tethys Ocean page. (Article at Tethys Ocean.) This page (?) is not neutral regarding the usage of the term Palaeo-Tethys (or Palaeotethys; see Robertson, 2004; Robertson et al., 2004) or its interpretation for tectonic reconstructions. I could potentially help with this. However, it is a bit of a contentious issue.

• I'm currently working on setting up a Geology of Cyprus article, this will hopefully then lead onto articles about Transform Faults, Obduction, Ophiolite and Messinian Salinity Crisis. Plus what ever else turns up. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see most of these have been set up already; I'll look at adding some images from my fieldwork there. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Transform fault exists as well, using the singular. Cheers Geologyguy 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Geoforecasting - appears to be a stub with the top-priority.

• Ring of Gullion AONB - some of my family live near by so I was having a read up, the article is a little weird I briefly spoke with Prof. G. Fitton about the structure a year or two back and from that I was lead to believe that the structure was simply an excellent example of a Ring Dyke resulting from Caldera collapse not "practically unique globally ..[sic]..when a collision of two massive plates may have dislodged into the earth’s mantle an enormous pluton that had intruded into the bottom of the crust at this point". The structure certainly isn't a compressional one but hopefully someone else may have a little more time or knowledge to figure it out. ClimberDave 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly sourced from this goverment website so maybe there is some truth in the article, http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/landscape/designated-areas/aonb/aonb_mourne/aonb_mourne_geology.htm ClimberDave 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Clay - The topic is deceptively simple, but the article is not, it is just simplistic. Drillerguy 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Effective Porosity I came across this article doing wikify work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify and I didn't even know where to begin here. The article is so jargony and rambling that I can't make heads or tails of it enough to help clean it up. It seems like a good topic, but I cannot pull enough information out of it to even write an effective lead section. Someone with some expertise in this area needs to do some serious work here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Cenozoic article does not do a good job addressing the controversies surrounding the causes of the late Cenozoic cooling trends.

• Geology of Lizard, Cornwall - article needs references, also expansion and some better exposition for the non-technical reader. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lias (group) - someone had used this title to write an article specifically about white lias. I've moved the article to White lias but that leaves the "group" page looking for an article to be written about the group. Can someone here do that? It could then be linked to Blue lias and White lias and a few geological articles which currently link to the lias disambiguation page could be redirected straight to the "group" article. The articles on white and blue lias could also do with (non-commercial) refs. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Timberframe (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Supercontinents - this article needs urgent attention because some of the definitions are wrong and the list of supercontinents is wrong. I have added some useful info in the discussion section of the article under 'List of Supercontinents and definition' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ear4rgjb (talk • contribs) 2009

I will work on this article. I have some notes from my work on the Rove Formation and Vaalbara; on my user pages I am working on the Algoman/Kenoran Orogeny and I just moved the Saganagan Orgeny to my user page because of conflicting information. Anyway, I do have some notes and I am interested. Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I did start by adding the information I had from my visit to libraries a couple of weeks ago. I was thinking the next logical step would be to list the supercontinents, and then saw there was a Wikipedia article "List of supercontinents", with a notice on top that no references are cited. The information I used was essentially for the supercontinent cyling process; there is an existing Wikipedia article " Supercontinent cyle" with a notice that it has no inline citations. All three of these articles need work. I believe that all three should be combined. If no one objects by next Saturday (3/27/10) I will go ahead to integrate the three into one article "Supercontinents". I probably will omit SOME of the material on 'Effect on sea level' (particularly the mathematical equations). Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'm poking around the internet some, looking for a list of supercontinents (because I think the Wikipedia article has more listed than I thought there were). Anyway the Wikipedia article seems to be copy-and-pasted from http:// statemaster . com / encyclopedia / List - of - supercontinents with the section of Possible Future Subcontinents deleted.Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Statemaster article is a copy of the Wikipedia article (scroll down to the bottom of the Statemaster page to see the licence information). DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I continue to work sloooooowly on this on my user page.Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Geology I've been doing some work over the past few months to bring the geology main article up to date (it was sitting at the first half of the 20th century, mostly). I'd love some (any!) help in expanding it and adding new sections. Awickert (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the article focusses way too much on large scales. What geology is really about is the study of 1) rocks (petrology), 2) rock strata (stratigraphy) and 3) larger scale structures of/in the Earth's crust (structural geology). Geophysics and planetary geology, which now dominate the article, are related subjects, just as Earth history, paleontology, geochemistry, etc. They should be mentioned, especially when they overlap with geology, but the focus of the article should be on the three subdisciplines. Woodwalker (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh - I guess when I was an undergraduate in geology, we focused on the large-scale as well as the small scale, and so "geology" was defined much more broadly. I think the reason my edits made the article go that way (besides the fact that I consider geochronology, Earth structure, and plate tectonics to definitely be within "geology") are that:

1. The article was focused on pre-20th-century geology, so I added the section on Modern Geology - maybe it would be better to re-structure (once there is enough info) into subdisciplines.
2. There was a section on planetary geology that I consolidated.
3. I was just starting, and so with an overview article, I wanted to go as broad-scale as I could (also related to the fact that I consider the broad-scale things part of geology), and so I added the sections on Earth structure, tectonics, and geochron and the time-scale as good general things to know, but not so much in a sense of fields within geology. Thinking of that, the geochron and time-scale sections should be combined, though I'd have to re-structure the "modern geology" section and create a more combined approach, as the geologic time-scale was around before the 2nd half of the 20th century.

So maybe the best conclusion would be to work on adding in more info on petrology, sed/strat, and structural geology, as you say, and try to create a new structure that (a) provides all of the required basic information and (b) Introduces the sub-fields.

Awickert (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right. The boundaries between disciplines are indeed rather vague. Plate tectonics could be seen as geophysics, but geophysics itself can also be seen as a form of geology, etc.

My point is: I think the core disciplines should be more prominently present. I would start with those (say, the "methods" of geology), then mention related things like geochemistry that are less 'core'. The current paragraph "Important principles in the Development of Geology" must be included in this. Expansion is needed yes.

After that, a next part could be on "results from geology", what you call "Modern geology": things like plate tectonics, age of the Earth, Earth history (currently has its own paragraph "Geologic time", rather unnecessary in my POV), etc. Geochronology... good point. Geochronologic methods could be mentioned together with stratigraphy I think. The current paragraph seems excellent to me, nice job.

I like the structure of the practical part ("Applied geology"), this section could still be expanded.

The lists of disciplines and regional geology articles can be removed, but that's my personal taste/POV.

The article starts with a history section. I think the emphasis is too much on the time before guys like Hutton, Cuvier or Smith "invented" modern geology and too little on more recent history. These now form equal parts, but the latter one is probably more than 10x more important. I would skip the Greeks and Arabs altogether, mention Da Vinci and Steno and then go straight to the Victorian age. Woodwalker (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your "methods of geology" idea. That could be a good construct to talk about the main things - sed/strat, structure, and petrology, in a way that addresses all of the different kinds of studies that geologists use - field, laboratory, and modeling. I think it could do a good job of being a way to more accessibly describe geology, by building on popular conceptions of geologists.

Results from geology sounds good; I think including something on geologic time is essential (in my POV); maybe it could be better if it is better-integrated with supporting information on geologic history (which is what I tried to do in a quick way in my bulleted list).

I agree - I like the applications section too - I made it! It is very stubbish, though.

I'd like to keep the list of disciplines at least until they're adequately covered in the article - in my (expansionist) POV, it's never bad to have more links, and it helps me to think of what I still need to add. Ditto on the regional geology articles: my POV is to put more links up if possible, to help interested people find articles.

Totally agree on the history/modern part. That's why when I started expanding it, I created the "modern geology" section; Vsmith told me that a lot of the article was lifted from the 1911 Britannica, which explains its 100-year-old bias. I'm less good at removing material than adding (just like the links, a pack rat POV), but I definitely think that the "history" could be dropped down to the bottom, especially once there is enough info on the article to fill up the top.

Thanks for taking the time to make the suggestions, by the way! I had no idea where to take the article.

Awickert (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a page in my sandbox to start writing up the methods of geology: User:Awickert/Sandbox/Methods_of_geology. In particular, we would cover all of the classic approaches that are mentioned by User:Woodwalker that one would need for field geology and mapping: structure, sed/strat, and petrology. The goal is that this would become a method-based instead of discipline-based introduction to classic geological investigation, and would link back to the main pages on each of the disciplines involved. Please assist if you have time and interest! Awickert (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weathering - for such a typical high school topic this article is pretty poor. There are 2 references and some confusion over carbonation/carbonatation and dissolution. If I knew more I'd DIY but I don't so I thought I'd leave you a note. Smartse (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Đavolja Varoš - I recognize these type of rock structures, but don't know what they are called or recall enough to do a useful search. I've tagged the article as needing help from this project. If someone could simply identify the structures, then it should be easy to expand the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to Hoodoo (geology), as well as some geology categories. A little expert help would still be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Low-velocity zone needs a page; it is referred to in Mantle (geology), Hawaii hotspot, Valles Caldera, Mantle plume, Asthenosphere & Lehmann discontinuity. Brews ohare (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The low-velocity zone is often coincident with the asthenosphere, but is less marked or completely absent under continental shield areas. This ref says that they are "probably quite distinct",[2] which may make a separate article potentially hard to either write or justify. I'll see whether I can come up with something. Mikenorton (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've created a short article on the LVZ. Have a look and decide whether a separate existence is justified or whether its content should be merged into the asthenosphere article. I'm leaning towards its survival. Mikenorton (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Geology of Nepal - is incomprehensible to lay readers. See my list of overly technical terms at Talk:Geology_of_Nepal. LADave (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the validity of the Hot blob article. It appears to be a theory postulated by at least a few scientists, but I'm not sure how accepted the theory is. Either way, it is in severe need of overhaul from people who understand the topic better. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important to remember that geology consists of a collection of scientific theories (generally large) and observations that have not yet had adequate explanation (generally small, like meanders or Rapakiwi orbs; though why island arcs are arced is simply implied to be explained by plate tectonics, which it isn't). The three arcane explanations for meanders make impressive reading, but (like the various columnar joints) aren't identified as just hypotheses proposed in papers. The only facts in geology are observations and measurements.

Theories of the 19th Century were replaced by theories of the 20th for good reasons. Geology has a history, and it was generally built from small objects to larger. One cannot present theories of big objects and phenomena without explaining what they explain & predict better than the previous. Why is plate tectonics better than the geosynclinal theory? (Shrinking & expanding earths were, I believe, unused by the average geologist.)

People also see smaller objects during vacations or holidays. :-) Small features, such as magnetite in basalt, were the building blocks for sea-floor spreading. Compasses' failing to work on basalt makes larger theories more interesting and closer to one. This is Woodwalker's point, I believe; one I agree with. Geologist (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One example of always having observations, theory, & methodology in the back of one's mind when writing scientific articles pops-up with low-velocity zone and asthenosphere. The low-velocity zone is a concrete object, observable on seismograms; and the asthenosphere is a theoretical object deduced from the LVZ and some other physical theory. Even if they coincide exactly, they are 'different' to a positivist scientist. Emphasizing the science in geology might also clarify to some that geology is one.-| Geologist (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of a series on Geology template

Template:Geology2
I like the "part of a series on" templates, as they serve as an easy to use gateway for readers and tie various articles together. I have previously made one for Paleontology so I decided to make one for Geology as well. I used the first Geology template as a basis. It needs review, an image, more topics and more articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When I see "part of a series", I expect a tightly coordinated set of articles. I think such a template would be more appropriate for something covered by a topic coordination, not an entire Wikiproject. Also, sidebar templates tend to create clutter in the lead section. For these reasons, I prefer Geology template. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RockMagnetist about the clutter factor. I like the addition of "History of Geologic science". I'd guess that List of geologists could be put there to cover the biographical aspects. However, I too prefer the bottom template format of Geology template. --Bejnar (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)