Talk:Geology of the North Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments on geology[edit]

Please see the GA review for the article North Sea and how to improve this article on the North Sea Geological History....

(From this discussion) For North Sea I recomment using Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines - pages 27-38 are maps that show the shape of N Sea 95 million years ago to 20 million years ago. This focuses on coastlines, i.e. gives info abut the N Sea as a sea. After reading the others in more detail I found that the others focus more on the movement of continental plates, which include the present-day continental shelves, but they say nothing about whether the shelf areas were covered by sea at the time. That restricts North Sea's paleographical coverage to mid-Cretaceous onwards, but: it still gives some info; trying to go back further gets into really heavy geology; going back further also raises problems of definition, i.e. whether a body of water in the same place relative to bits of modern Europe could be called "North Sea" when its coastline and connections to other bodies of seawater were very different (the consensus is "no"). --Philcha (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (From above discussion)

SriMesh | talk 20:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of this article[edit]

A conversation has been entered into at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#North_Sea Wikiproject Geology North Sea about the naming. Should it be renamed Geology of the North Sea? SriMesh | talk 20:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Should this article be added to the Template talk:Geology of Europe? SriMesh | talk 20:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is more similar to Geology of articles rather than the current title which was a section of the article the North Sea. There has also been discussion about this name sake move at the talk page of the North Sea during its GA review. SriMesh | talk 03:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support the move as discussed at the TP of the North Sea article. Woodwalker (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. "Geological history" makes no sense. History is comprised of the relatively very brief period since human written record started. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
With human history perhaps, but geologists read the rocks to find out about the history of the earth. Their usage of the word history has a different, but parallel, meaning than that used by historians. Look at all of the textbooks and college courses entitled "Historical Geology". See also the History (disambiguation) page and the History of the Earth article. Of course the two meanings can coexist in the same sentence. "Fossils of pre-historic beasts reveal the history of the early Cretaceous." --Bejnar (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point. Thank you. I never-the-less support the move if nothing else because I subjectively prefer the proposed name to the current name, and know of no policies, conventions or guidelines that indicate one should be preferred over the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the current title is acceptable. If the article is renamed as proposed, it will sooner or later get more content about non-historical aspects of geology, and perhaps also a section similar to Geology of the Iberian Peninsula#History_of_geology. But I don't think that's necessarily bad, and having a systematic series of articles of this kind would be very good. (It seems we are not there yet. The links in Template:Geology_of_Europe are mostly red. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that template's setup isn't so well chosen, please see my argument against dividing regional geology along national borders here. Woodwalker (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I merely accepted the existence and present state of the template as a given; I agree that that was a mistake. Incidentally the present article is of course an example of the kind of articles we should have. But a quick glance at Category:Geology of Europe suggests that we are, as I said, not there yet. Perhaps someone knowledgeable can edit the template so it is a list of articles that actually make sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.