Talk:Geology of Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Solar System / Mars (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mars (marked as Top-importance).
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Geology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Geology of Mars 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


doi:10.1046/j.1468-4004.2001.42617.x This is the only science article using this word Areology! The other sources in the net are edu servers of some universities which have more advertising character than scientific.

So lets ask the real question: Where das areology come from, and should it go the way all phantasy word should go in wikipedia? --Stone 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just like geo- come from the Greek goddess "Gaia" personifying the Earth, Areology comes from the Greek god Ares (or in Roman Mars), the greek god of war. So if you say the "geology" of Mars, unless geology is put in inverted commas the phrase isn't technically correct. You have a similar naming for other planets. Look up Selenology for "geology" of the moon (although one could argue that since current theory suggests that the moon is derived from the Earth, the "geo" term is perfectly acceptable in this case). I think the reason it is not widely used is becuase people don't want to, even though it is the scientifically correct term.

This discussion mirrors the one we're having about areography but in this case I feel the case is even more clear. I can state without hestitation that professional planetary scientists (like myself) do not use 'areology'. For a concrete example, I just came back from the American Geophysical Union meeting where I attended the following session: I don't think that areology is an "incorrect" term -- it's just not the dominant term and I believe that wikipedia ought to use the dominant term in its titles. Jespley 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say somebody invented it and one or two used it and the rest never heard of it and should be happy with it.--Stone 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jespley, you say you're a professional planetary scientist, but you fail to say that you're specialisation is planetary atmospheres NOT planetary geology, most planetary scientists I know use the "are-" terms.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2006

Fair enough -- I can only speak about my own experience. Nonetheless, I do interact with a lot of "pure" geologists and actually my some of my recent work has direct geological implications. Jespley 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does nobody use the term in publications? --Stone 11:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The planetary geologists I've had the opportunity to speak or work with usually work by proxy, using places like Hawaii and East Africa as stand-ins for the surface of Mars. They just use the overarching phrase "geology" to keep things simple. Also, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury are all considered "terrestrial" planets, a word that has its root in the Latin word for Earth, so using the term "geology" highlights and pays tribute to the similarities of the four, rather than the differences. Doomlad13 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


I just added a section on rocks/minerals; however I hope to break this down into a short paragraph and link to something else. Eventually, I hope to write a major article on rocks/minerals according to the landers. I was waiting until the end of the Rover missions, but Spirit just goes on forever.Jimmarsmars (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


Just switched the "Water on Mars" section, which was empty, for a more generic "Sedimentology" section. Lets us have a few sentences on the various sediment depositional features on the Martian surface, which were otherwise overlooked. Tried to keep it tight as I could for length. A picture of Eberswalde (crater) (or equivalent) might be appropriate, but I left it for now. DanHobley (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Could someone translate the linked page of the Zasada curve from German to English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Plate tectonics[edit]

More plate tectonics evidence [1] -- (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Marsquake Sidelight12 (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw this too. I wasn't all that impressed. The evidence is pretty circumstantial; he's essentially just got (pretty good) evidence for widespread but small scale transtensional faulting in the V. Marineris, but then there's a jump to "...and I think there's largescale (>>100 km) offset too", and from there to "...big offsets = plate tectonics". No-one would dispute there's tectonics (i.e., faulting) on Mars, including neotectonics (there was a paper by Gerald Roberts some time recently on this), but "plate tectonics" implies a *globally* integrated system, which he manifestly hasn't shown. I think it's worth noting this has shown up in Lithosphere too, not Science, Nature, or something with a decent impact factor or track record of publishing planetary science (i.e., I think this probably got a light ride through review?). We could mention this study somewhere in the article in passing, but in my mind there's little point in going to town on it. DanHobley (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)