Talk:Fold and thrust belt
|WikiProject Mountains||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Geology||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
Listed fold-thrust belts compared to the definition
Ignoring for the moment the obvious regional bias (maybe just the first stage in a major expansion that never got completed?), some of those listed do not meet the definition of 'foothills' and 'foreland'. The Nagssugtoqidian mobile belt, for instance, is a deeply eroded orogenic belt of Proterozoic age and we can't say anything definite about its shallow geometry. IMO most of those for which the structural style is 'unknown' should probably not be included. Mikenorton (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am re-naming this article to "Fold and thrust belt" (which I just created as a redirect to it). Reasons:
- I got twice as many hits on both Google and Google Scholar for "Fold and thrust belt" as compared to "Fold-thrust belt"
- "Fold and Thrust belt" is the name I learned for these features as a geologist
- It will need to be re-named for capitalization anyway, so why not just move it to a better title?
I suggest to add somewhere that "thrust-fold belt" is also a frequently used form of the term (and has more hits in google than fold-thrust belt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Magallanes fold-thrust belt
I edited the name, since this FTB is also known as Fuegian FTB (specially in Argentina). I also changed the age of the FTB, which is not Mesozoic but Latest Cretaceous to early Neogene (left "Late Cretaceous-Cenozoic"). References: Álvarez Marrón et al., 1993, AAPG Bull. 77, 1904-1921; Klepeis, 1994, Tectonics 13, 882-904; Ghiglione and Ramos, 2005, Tectonophysics 405, 25-46; Torres Carbonell et al., in press, Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 349). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
"compressional" tectonics ?
Versus just "Fold Belt"?
I have contexts where "fold belt" seems to be preferred. Can anyone provide direction as to the relative merits, legitimacy, usage, etc. of "fold and thrust belt" versus "fold belt"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- As with so much geological terminology there's no straightforward answer to this. Generalising, usage of just 'fold belt' is somewhat less common in the last 20 years or so, but it's still in use for structures like the Cape Fold Belt and the Lachlan Fold Belt. The added emphasis on thrusting came as it became clear that the frontal part of mountain belts involved a lot more thrusting than folding (in terms of total strain contribution), with much of the folding being a direct result of the thrusting. Both of the examples that I used above are now known to involve major amounts of thrust faulting so could probably be renamed as fold and thrust belts. I'll see if I can dig up some sources that confirm all this, although that may tricky to do. Mikenorton (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fold and thrust belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331021459/http://www.geology.gov.yk.ca/pdf/SelwynBasin.pdf to http://www.geology.gov.yk.ca/pdf/SelwynBasin.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.