Talk:Fissure

You made a new redundant article the primary topic. Please fix.

@John Cline: Can you please explain what you did here? I requested that the article at Fissure be moved to Fissure (anatomy), because it wasn't the primary topic. That was done. I also requested that the current disambiguation page be moved from Fissure (disambiguation) to Fissure. That was also done. The reason for that request was that there was no primary topic. Once those changes were done, there were a lot of incoming links to the disambiguation page now at Fissure, and these needed to fixed. This makes sense, first because articles that used to point to the anatomy article were now pointing to the disambiguation page. More important, though, a lot of incoming links were actually for other topics on geology, such as ground fissure and ice fissure. These articles used to incorrectly point to the anatomy article.

Now, what I don't understand is that you seem to have subsequently broke things. You apparently moved Fissure back to Fissure (disambiguation) and you created what appears to be a whole new stub article at Fissure. You also made this new article the primary topic. The primary problem here is that this stub article is redundant with the Ground fissure article listed on the disambiguation page. If you wanted to make Ground fissure the primary topic, then you should have moved that article from Ground fissure to the primary topic at Fissure. Now there's going to be confusion, because there are two articles on fissures pertaining to the earth. This is not a good outcome. I only requested that the fact there was no primary topic be reflected in the way the Fissure and Fissure (disambiguation) pages were titled.

I think you should revert part of this change and put the disambiguation page back to Fissure and redirect Fissure (disambiguation) to that page. Also, you should delete the stub Fissure article, since Ground fissure already covers that topic. Note that there was no prior consensus that Ground fissure is the primary topic. If you thought Ground Fissure was in fact the primary topic, you should have moved that article instead of creating a new one, and also you should have documented somewhere that was what you were doing. In the revision history, you said I requested this and didn't explain that you were also making Ground fissure the primary topic (which I never requested).Coastside (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: After further review, I would say your new stub article is better than the current article at Ground fissure. Accordingly, I suggest you 1) Delete your new stub article at Fissure 2) Revise the current article at Ground fissure with the new content you put in the stub article. Doing this will preserve the edit history at the previous article. Now, if you want to make this the primary topic, I'm fine with it I suppose, although there wasn't prior consensus on that. It probably is the primary topic, although Ice fissure and Fissure (anatomy) are often intended. In any case, if you leave it that way, you should also 3) change the text in the introductory sentence in the disambiguation page from " is a deep, elongated groove or tear," which is a generic dictionary definition for when there is no primary topic, to something related to a geologic fissure, since you made that the primary topic.Coastside (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Coastside, this is what happened: when I reviewed your uncontroversial technical request to have these pages moved, I was confused about your having stated that there was no primary topic for Fissure because Fissure (disambiguation) began by saying a fissure is "the definition for a geological fissure", which is the manner for setting out the geological fissure as the primary topic for the base page name. I started to bring this up in discussion, but instead: I assumed (and that's where the problems began) that you actually meant that there was a primary topic (the geological fissure) but it hadn't been created yet. Everything you requested to be moved made sense by that assumption so I went with it as being that and moved everything as you asked. If I'd have asked, or knew that you really did mean to say there was no primary topic, I'd have moved everything as you asked except that I would have ensured that the disambiguation page didn't set out a primary topic by saying "A Fissure is definition" and instead opened it by saying something like "a fissure may be":. So I carried away with the assumption/misunderstanding yet no harm had been done and all the pages were moved and in place like you requested they be. And they would have stayed that way, by me, until the bot posted that error message about all the incoming links to the disambiguation page. I figured it would be easier and faster, for me, to create the primary topic for Fissure as a geological-stub than to visit each of the incoming links and point them away from the disambiguation page. And that's what I did. I didn't notice the Ground fissure page or I would have done things differently for sure. So now there is a mess to be cleaned up, and it will get done. But I'm not sure, at the moment, what will be the best way to accomplish it. My initial thoughts are that Fissure should remain in place as the primary topic, and that Ground fissure should be history merged into it (keeping the history of both pages intact) and then redirected to Fissure. And then, all of those pages using "natural disambiguation" that have fissure intitle should be included in Fissure (disambiguation) which would remain. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion above starting with My inital thoughts are.... The other thing that will need to be done is to go through all the incoming links to Fissure, because they are not all for geological fissures. Many are for other topics, including Crevasse (ice fissure) and Eruption fissure. I've been fixing some of those, but there are many that yet need fixing.Coastside (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done I went through all incoming links to Fissure and revised as appropriate.Coastside (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You did a very nice job with that Coastside, thank you.--John Cline (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: I created a redirect fissure (geologic fracture) for what I think is the most common use of the term fissure in the context of geology. It's a formal term for a geologic fracture that's opened up. Although it's a very common usage, it's only a subtopic of fracture (geology), or more specifically it's a term for a kind of fracture. Point here is it's not a candidate for primary topic, because it's not an article. I think I need to change a lot of the links to the article fissure, because many (most?) of them do not have to do with ground fissures that are due to subsidence. There are still some uses of the word that are really dictionary definitions meaning some kind of crack that are not specifically geological, and I think for those it's still appropriate to link to wiktionary. There is an argument to be made that ground fissure isn't actually the primary topic - that the primary use of the word fissure is this more generic use as a kind of geologic fracture. If that's the case, then maybe there is no primary topic, and ground fissure should be just one entry among the others in the disambiguation page. Or perhaps the primary topic is in fact this term, and it should be linked as the primary topic in the disambiguation page, in which case the topic Fissure would link to the new redirect fissure (geologic fracture). Thoughts?Coastside (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Fissure (geologic fracture) is very poor wording IMO, and is better termed Fissure (geology), and what are you basing the assertion of "most common use" on? I feel that there is a level of word lawyering going on there is that much in excess of the articles actually being talked about. Fracture (geology) is a mess, its talking about cracks in a broad highly technical sense, which is correct, but then is wrongly shoehorning Fissures in as a purported subtopic, which they are not. (The odd interplay with "fractures" and "faults" needs help as well. It doesnt deal at all with the interplay of Fracture (mineralogy) and how that effects larger rock fractures.

Your assertion the Fissures are a specific type of Fracture is wrong, as there are other ways that fissures form besides from a preexisting fracture. --Kevmin § 22:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm specifically looking at all the incoming links to Fissure (or to Fissure (geologic fracture) since I've redirected some of those). There are a lot of these. Most of these links are NOT referring to fissures that are anthropogenic in nature and result from ground subsidence (as currently described in the Fissure article). They just mean a long, narrow crack in the earth. What do we point those links to? We could point them to Wikt:fissure as a dictionary definition of the word. Where would you point them? You can't point them to the disambiguation page. Would you simply unlink all of these? Here are some examples: Halecombe, Whatley Quarry, Pachypodium habitats, Saltwater intrusion, Coastal_erosion, Melouri Cave Natural Monument, and many others here.Coastside (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The fissures for Pachypodium habitats are ice formed, this not directly fracture (geology) related, the Whatley Quarry fissures are resulting from karst formation, the Saltwater intrusion is HIGHLY generalized, etc. The Fissure article is wrong to assert subsidence as the primary cause, It is ONE cause, with freeze/thaw cycles, heat warping, stress fracturing, and faulting all as causes as well. This is why you need to slow your roll on this and we need to address the mess existing in the current articles, especially considering this is not a topic you have extensive edit history in. The majority of the incoming links should likely go to an expanded Fissure article that addresses the wider use of the term in geology, and not to Fracture which is about the cause of only some Fissures. --Kevmin § 23:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that fissures are kinds of fractures, I'm talking not about all fissures, but about fissures that are a kind of fracture in the earth. That's why I titled the redirect fissure (geologic fracture).

Here are some sources:

• Geoscience World - a fissure is fracture whose walls have been opened significantly by separation...
• US Geological Survey - In geology, a fissure is a fracture or crack in rock along which there is a distinct separation
• American Geophysical Union Background from Fracture Mechanics: For the MOR environment a fissure is here defined as an open, Mode I tension crack initiating at the surface...

As far as other ways they could form, there is Fissure vent, which is a different article specific to volcanic fissures. There is also Ice fissure. And of course there are ground fissures, which form from subsidence. We've been discussing those already. There are also "fissures" that are just cracks in things, such as in Glass crusher, but those are dictionary definition applications of the word, i.e., fissure. Other than those, fissures that form in the earth form because a fracture (defined at fracture (geology) as "any separation in a geologic formation of the earth") has widened. They start as small cracks in a geological formation and then open up. What other kinds of fissures are there? Coastside (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding making these articles better, go for it. My primary concern started from that fact that all sorts of links to fissure had to do with geology, not anatomy, which was how the "Fissure" article was first presented, i.e., the anatomy article was the primary topic. As far as writing an entirely new article on geologic fissures, I think that would be great. Once that's done all these links can be addressed anew. For the record, my "roll" didn't cause the mess these articles are in. I didn't write them. I've been focused almost entirely on trying to fix the mess with the incoming links. In any case, I won't make any more edits on fissures given that it sounds like there is someone else willing to address the mess. Coastside (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reflecting further on your comments, I think the path forward here is to rewrite Fissure as a general article on fissures in the context of geology. Or name that article Fissure (geology) and just make Fissure a disambiguation page. The "mess" here started, because there was no good article on geological fissures. There were subtopic articles on fissure vents, subsidence fissures ("ground fissures"), ice fissures, fractures, etc. But no general article on fissures. I would agree a general article on geologic fissures that summarizes these various topics (referring to other articles as appropriate) would be helpful. Coastside (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Arriving a bit late, I did read the discussion that transpired in my absence. I wish I would have been around because, almost entirely, the criticism of this article falls squarely on me. I appreciate the many suggestions given and will begin incorporating them into the article directly. Coastside, I think you are correct that this general article will probably be best titled as "Fissure (geology)" and the disambiguation page will, in all likelihood, end up being at "Fissure". I also think the "Ground fissure" article should probably be reinstated and improved so it can serve as the main article for an appropriate section of this article. We can move the pages when ready, but I would like to also hear Kevmin's thoughts to these regards. I also hope that each of you will look in on this page and copyedit/fact check as the content developes. I freely admit that I've no special training in geology, and I haven't edited, as a Wikipedian, in this topic area. Needless to say, I welcome all forms of collaboration that may come. With sincere and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Karst aquifers

@John Cline: I commend you for the great work you're doing to develop this article, and the new information on Karst aquifers is very interesting. However, wouldn't it make more sense to add this to the article on Karst formations rather than in this article on Fissures? Coastside (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Coastside, your contributions are commendable as well, and we'll appreciated. Most of the information here is already mentioned in the Karst article at Karst#Hydrology. I agree that the detailed table would be a better fit there with a simpler list here. I will work that out directly. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)