Talk:Lithology
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I've taken it back to a redirect to petrology for now. Better than an essentially meaningless dab page linked to by 100+ articles. Also note an article is in the works - MN & AW replace when that comes out of the oven. Vsmith (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Vsmith. When I made the dab, it was with the fundamental error of thinking that I would be able to cook up a true lithology article in a couple days. Awickert (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at the budding article ... and agree that good refs are rather sparse for the topic, more of a field term. Back in the 70s I had a copy of "Textbook of Lithology" by Kern Jackson, it was very good ... don't know what I did with it. You might find a copy at the univ. library. Or maybe Lahee's geology field guide ... I've still got a copy of that, somewhere. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- New article now available, thanks to everybody that provided input. Mikenorton (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked at the budding article ... and agree that good refs are rather sparse for the topic, more of a field term. Back in the 70s I had a copy of "Textbook of Lithology" by Kern Jackson, it was very good ... don't know what I did with it. You might find a copy at the univ. library. Or maybe Lahee's geology field guide ... I've still got a copy of that, somewhere. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)