From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Small but important[edit]

When writing the article, stick to either petrification or petrifaction - the article looks foolish if they are used interchangeably.

I would to find information on artificial [commercial] petrifaction - I recall a documentary charting a process & going so far as to illustrate a bridge currently in use made entirely of petrified materials.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


You know what? It would be just REALLY stupid to say it's only biology subject, as a very large number of articles (actually outnumbering the meaning which is "proper", according to some!) link here but they mean is petrfication magic in mythology and fiction. This approach was just retarded. So I fixed it. You're welcome. --Asperchu (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've moved your new content to two new articles: Petrifaction (architecture) and Petrifaction in mythology and fiction as this is about the geological/paleontological usage. Please now provide references and expand your two new articles. Vsmith (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


And this is why. Way to completely misunderstand the issue, good job. And if you still don't understand: all these links link HERE (to the completely different content). And if you fix all of them, there will be new very soon. This is how it is. So now I'll revert back all of you good faith vandalism, and you'll delete the two silly "mine" articles that you have created for no reason. Asperchu (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Disambiguation. And yes, more of the "what links here" pages need to be fixed. I understand quite well - and an article should be about one usage of a word with disambiguation notes and links for other uses. Vsmith (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The content of Petrifaction (architecture) already existed at Classical architecture#Petrification so made that a redirect. Fixed a bunch of what links here links. Vsmith (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Artificial stuff[edit]

Removed the material about a 1986 patent as it was based on a nonWP:RS source and referred to a patent. Need reliable sources discussing the "patent" for inclusion here. A German creationist website is not a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I must have posted the wrong reference, it rarely happens with me as I didn't check what I posted in the final draft! I agree with you that creationist sites should be avoided at any costs, as they pick out actual research papers and ptents and adapt some ideas in a way that suits their purposes ( their goal is to "prove" that all fossils, including petrified wood of extinct species, would not date back ealier than a few millenia before our era, which is completely stupid . They rely on the fact that manmade semi silicified wood , which emulates petrified wood, is feasible in a short span of time, therefore according to creationists, all petrified wood on earth would be "young", ins't that retarded). Instead I found Hick's US patent and used it as a ref instead of the previous unreliable ref. This being said, mentioning Girolamo and his supposed "petrifaction of human bodyparts" (which he supposedly acquired from "mystical journeys through Egypt" , this shows how unreliable bibliography concerning him can be) is really off topic in a geology article, it should be moved too mummification or embalming wikipedia articles . I've added a new industrial process (with refs) involving conversion of wood into novelty ceramic products which retain the microstructure of wood (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference between petrification and fossilization[edit]

Is there a difference? Should the articles become merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)