Talk:Rock (geology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 10 November 2012 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon


This article mentions mining rocks for their precious materials, but people also quarry rock for the purpose of the rock itself, not just its material components. A picture of the parthenon would be appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8074:6F50:0:0:0:47 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


"Rock" does not redirect here. I propose that someone edit that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


"Stone" is missing a disambiguation page. There's also a unit of mass named "stone" (14 lbs, ~6.35 kg). my dad is the rock(: he is like a wrestler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the differences between rock against stone, gravel, or sand have to made clear! HJJHolm (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Classification of rocks[edit]

The 1st two sentences seem to contradict. Are rocks classified by their composition, or the process that formed them. I'm sure a geologist could find a way to word this better.ike9898 01:34, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

By all three: composition, texture, and origin. No contradiction, all three are needed and used simultaniously with differing emphases depending on the purpose of the specific classification project. Vsmith 22:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What type of rock would all rocks have started as?

"Molten magma"[edit]

Is it correct to talk about molten magma? Isn't magma molten by definition in which case it's a bit like "wet water". Nurg 10:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

General Questions[edit]

Would it be possible for a solid to have a crystal structure and be considered a rock, opposed to a mineral?

A rock is composed of minerals, however some rocks are monomineralic such as chert or very pure marble. So - sorta yes and no :-) the crystal structure pertains to the mineral(s) the rock is made of. Vsmith 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
       Follow up Question

Chert is known as cryptocrystalline, what is the molecular structure of marble?

Cryptocrystalline in this usage refers to the crystal size which is present in chert (extremely small and invisible without electron microscopy). Marble would simply be referred to as crystalline, as the individual calcite or dolomite crystal faces are visible to the naked eye, despite the fact that the crystals are inter-grown.Jones1rocks (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Does a rock necessarily have to have organic material in it? Particularly, do igneous rocks have organic material in them?

No. Most rocks have no (recognizable) organic content. Organic material is typically restricted to sedimentary rocks as it would be destroyed (cooked) by most igneous or high grade metamorphism. OK - anthracite is metamorphosed coal, so there is an overlap there. Now given that, there could be a component of igneous rocks that originated as organic material slurped down in a subduction zone. And if a lava flow engulfed a tree trunk ... Hope that all helps a bit. Vsmith 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can a metamorphic rock be formed directly from a mineral? For example, hornblende (from my understanding) is a mineral and also a metamorphic rock that is the direct result of a metamorphosed mineral--is this true?

Images on this page[edit]

As the core of the article focuses on classification of rock origin (igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic), I suggest to replace the current general "rock photos" with images ilustrating the content of the article. There are several suitable photos in Commons, even some featured picture winners. JanSuchy 10:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I could scan the black and white photos from the EB1911 article "Petrology"... (SEWilco 04:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. Rock is an ambiguous term, and other terms are notable, e.g., (Rock and roll, a term that is important enough to warrant timeless notability). Patstuarttalk|edits 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Rock. The disambiguation page currently there should be moved to Rock (disambiguation). savidan(talk) (e@) 06:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with it, seems that the proposeal should maybe also be mentioned on the Talk:Rock page as well. Vsmith 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: It will avoid the whole Earth Sciences vs Geology discipline kerfuffle inside the parentheses. Also, I wouldn't expect the vandalism rate to increase since (according to comment logs) Rock is vandalized every 5-ish days, while Rock (geology) is vandalized more frequently, often one or more times a day it appears. Add the two rates together, and it's about the same as Rock (geology), so sadly no change on that front.+mwtoews 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As a periodic disambiguous link fixer I can tell you that for every 1 Rock to Rock (geology) link, I fix 99 Rock to Rock music links. Moving Rock (geology) to Rock would make this cleanup impossible and result in thousands of music articles linking to the geological article and not the music article. On a pure what links here count Rock {geology} has 2,500ish links, Rock and roll has 3,500ish links, and Rock music has at least 13k links. Outside of Wikipedia, it would be hard to argue that Rock (geology) is the more common reference for the term than any other link on that page, especially rock music. --Bobblehead 09:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Rock and roll and Rock music are separate articles with their own namespace — they are not in the proposed move. Certainly, as with other similarly-placed articles, a Other uses blurb should appear at the top, and mis-linked articles will continually have to be corrected to the other uses. I can see that it would be more difficult to separate mislinked articles, however, I don't think this is a big deal, and there are millions of editors in the world to do the simple disambig fix if they stumble on a geology article.+mwtoews 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
This is true, they do have their own articles, but in common usage rock music is frequently referred to as just "rock" and a vast majority of links to these articles started off as links to rock and people like myself came along and changed those links to [[Rock music|rock]] or [[Rock and roll|rock]]. It is very common for articles to refer to rock music groups/songs/albums as "rock group/album/song" and to simply call their genre "rock". Just to illustrate my point, I disambiguated all of the main space articles that linked to Rock yesterday at 4:23 am Pacific Time[1]. In the 31.5 hours since I finished that 8 articles have been linked to Rock, all of which are in reference to Rock music. I'm not saying that Rock and roll or Rock music are part of the move, but they are definitely a reason why Rock (geology) can not be moved to "rock". A move of Rock (geology) would definitely cause harm to Wikipedia as large numbers of articles that were intended to link to Rock music or Rock and roll would instead be linked to the geological term. --Bobblehead 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Rock" is too common a word, with too many meanings (as the current page shows) for us to asignate a primary topic and direct readers there. Readers would be served best by the current disambiguation page, having the whole spectrum of possibilities while just one click away from geology or music. - Evv 14:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As ambiguous as "Rock" (with several popular meaning) is the main redirect Rock should go to the disambiguation page. though i personally think Rock (science) would be a better title for this article205.157.110.11 23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The disambig should stay at rock. Andrewa 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (former rock collector and current rock muso)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Comment by[edit] (talk · contribs) replaced the article with:

Dear Wikipedia editor guy, Your job must be hell.

Presumably he/she meant to leave the comment on the talk page, so I am doing this now. GracenotesT § 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions of the readers, Answer or add on[edit]

1) what exactly are rocks made of? I know there are minerals, but what minerals?Diferent kinds of minerals. Anything else inside? 2) what are different sizes called for rock fragments (e.g., boulder)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmarmie (talkcontribs) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the clast/grain/particle size see Particle size (grain size), now linked in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just came here because I was wondering what the main elemental composition of the typical rock is, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. That's a pretty big omission.MKULTRA333 (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the compositional range of rocks is enormous from near 100% SiO2 (quartzite), or CaCO3 (pure limestone) to rocks containing many components. It's hard to know what a 'typical rock' is. For the upper crust the overall composition is roughly granitic, but as I said the variability is huge. Mikenorton (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. Still, what you've just described is itself handy. Mentioning that there is no "typical" rock, and then covering 4 or 5 of the most common rocks. Basalt, granite, limestone... I'm not a geologist, so I don't know what rocks would be best. It doesn't need to be a detailed chemical analysis, just what makes up the bulk of the mass. I'll add it myself if no-one minds, though some suggestions as to what rocks to include would be appreciated.MKULTRA333 (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

most rocks[edit]

most rocks have been arround for meany years. rocks do not chust come in a second they have been created over meany years —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We are standing on a rock. Maybe Standing Rock should be linked to Earth. (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


there are so meany different kinds of rock were do you think we get expensive rocks from if you were to cut open a rock you might find a juwel or it is at least marbly all this has come from ordenary rocks the differance between most rocks is some are just plan but if you were to try and open a rock you may just be suprised so dont think rock are boring they are so fasanating

wrtten by leighann age 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Pitfalls of Semi-Protection[edit]

It's pretty silly to semi-protect an article that, at the time I write this, ends with "your gay." If I could, I'd edit that out, but I'm not a registered user. (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just mention problems here - we'll fix 'em. Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fourth type of rock[edit]

I am quite sure that Plutonic rock is two kinds of rock. One the kinde of Igneous rock. Two its own type of rock. Intrusive volcanic rock that has NOT cooled and hardened. Therefore there are four types of rock (not counting artificial). (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Got a reference? If it has not "cooled and hardened" then it's magma or lava and not a rock -- just a gonna be igneous rock. Vsmith (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No definition of rock!!!!![edit]

Bizarrely, this article does not say what rock is. The first sentence includes the unlinked word "aggregate" but there is no explanation of what that means. Wikipedia has no description of "aggregate" that would cover rock. And to make things worse, crushed rock is sometimes described as "aggregate". For example loose sand is an aggregate of minerals, but it is not rock. So, please, what is rock? Macguba (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is true... Brandon157 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


you get rocks that are descovered every day —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to Rock article[edit]

At the moment Rocks redirects here, which isn't very helpful if, as I was, you're looking for Rocks (song) by Primal Scream. I tried to change the redirect to the disambiguation page Rock but somebody pointed out that there were a fair few geology-related articles that link to Rocks and this move would cause chaos. When this page gets unprotected, somebody needs to put one of those "Rocks redirects here; for other uses see Rock" notices up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Volcanic rock[edit]

a link referring to volcanic rock links instead to volcanic, which redirects to volcano. Someone should fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing that out and sorry it took so long for someone to act on it. Mikenorton (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What is Leopard Rock?[edit]

Found this on a few sites in the net. ie. [2]. Searching on Wiki only pulls Seminoe Mountains greenstone belt, where it lists it in but with no link. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 2 July 2010[edit]


Simple grammatical correction in the following line: The use of rocks have had a huge impact... Please change have to has so that the line reads: The use of rocks has had a huge impact... (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, corrected. Mikenorton (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

fundamental question or statement[edit]

I am a mineralogist and petrologist; I would suggest that 'rock' is not the fundamental unit of geological material; the fundamental unit is a 'mineral grain' of which rocks are unusally composed. Note also, that some rocks (as currently described) are not composed of mineral grains but of glass; so even this ideal has some complications. I have found it useful to consider that 'glass' is a part of the liquid state and hence I can avoid the problem (note that the glassy state does have certain physical differences from liquids, but it also has similiarities to liquids; to my mind this is a quibble I can live with by considering it to be a 'special' or 'class of' liquids rather than a 'special' or 'class of' rocks). This is a fundamental question that needs to be resolved before launching into a description of 'rock'! Wallacemineral (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of article content[edit]

User:Deathlaser has recently added content by copying the lead sections from the mining and rock climbing articles with no indication of source. The user hasn't noted that here following my request on their talk page - so I'm noting it for them. Vsmith (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied stuff[edit]

Content from metamorphic rock, sedimentary and igneous were all copied here.--Deathlaser (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


The lead had no refs whatsoever, just added some.--Deathlaser (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Leads usually don't have any references, as they're a summary of the article body. Maxim(talk) 20:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the material added to the lead section as it contained errors and was sourced to non-WP:reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I've removed 3 references from the mining section. The material in those sources was identical to the content in the mining article - so either we have a WP:copyvio or more likely the websites have copied the WP content and as such they fail WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial Geology[edit]

Two issues. First, the lead is written from the perspective of the Earth's geology, and I feel that a feature on rock should be inclusive of other celestial bodies or an explanation about why the article focuses upon the Earth. Second, should extraterrestrial rock (like meteorites) that appear on Earth be a part of this article? Is a meteorite a rock even though it was not a part of the Earth's magma / sedimentary / metamorphic cycle? Thelema418 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The focus on Earth's rocks is simply a reflection of the most common usage plus the "geo" in geology. There is no reason for excluding lunar or martian rocks, feel free to add such in, perhaps, a section on extra-terrestrial rocks. Likewise for meteorite rock, just keep due weight in mind and the details on extra-terrestrial rocks should be in the respective main articles. Vsmith (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur with User:Vsmith. Expanding knowledge of extraterrestrial rocks would enhance the article. Eau (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
How should the topic of impact breccia be introduced into this article? Should it have a separate section under Classification? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as breccia isn't even discussed in this article, I'd say impact breccia probably shouldn't be -- yet... need to consider the level of the article and weight. That doesn't mean the article can't be expanded. But, if you follow that impact breccia link you'll end up at an unreferenced section in the breccia article. So, it seems prior to adding something here we should improve the existing article section. Rambled enough, Cheers Vsmith (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


This article is unusually small considering the importance of the topic. I was going include material from other wikis that seem to have better articles (Swedish, Polish and Catalan).

Also, "Stone" and "Rock" are not synonymous which the first line of the this article implies.[3]. --MarsRover (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. This article introduces them as the material, but should be speaking of the geological rock. I changed it, feel add more. Eau (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2012[edit]

I think that to some viewers the terms used in the text is too complicated. I think the opening sentence should be "Rock is a naturally occurring solid mixture of one or more minerals or organic matter". This way, people who do not understand those complicated words will be able to have a better understanding of what a rock is. [1] MathScienceVocabulary (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vacationnine 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ Holt Science & Technology Earth Science

Dead Coral[edit]

Coral is an appropriate topic of geology, and, in some locations, is everything rock should be. However, it does not fit within the definition of "rock" provided in this article. Coral is certainly not igneous, but neither does it fall within this article's definitions of sedimentary or metamorphic. It would be best to expand the definition of rock to include coral, and avoid referring to "non-rock" layers in stratigraphy. (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Proactivedave

Dead corals are part of limestone in the making, just like any other fossil of a reef building organism - see coral reef. Mikenorton (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Melting point[edit]

Any geogolists who can tell us the melting points for rocks? (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on March 27th, 2013[edit]

The second word of the second sentence of the third paragraph in the Classification section should be 'there' instead of 'here'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for spotting that. Mikenorton (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete Statement[edit]

The search entry "The Stone" does not redirect to this article anymore, in contrast to what is stated in the preliminary statement. Please correct it, those who can edit the page! Queen4thewin (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. — Reatlas (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rock which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment about "lithosphere"[edit]

I note that in the lead, it states that the lithosphere is made of rock. While true, this implies the rest of the mantle is not, which is incorrect. All of the crust and mantle is composed primarily of rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Primary topic. Rock (geology) is billions of years older than rock music. Rock (geology) forms a central aspect in the study of geology whereas rock music is merely a genre. In terms of longterm significance, rock is more likely to refer to the physical substance rather than the art because it will exist long after life on Earth has ceased. The popularity of rock music is impacted by fads and tastes while the geological object transcends culture. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Pointy RM that ignores the previous one at Talk:Rock#RM. In particular I agree with Bkonrad and BD2412 over there, you're just asking for mislinks. Rock is used with no qualifier to refer to both rocks and rock music. There is no primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A pointy waste of time. olderwiser 18:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The situation has not changed since the last discussion. I still fix incoming links to the disambiguation page, and the majority of them still refer to the music genre. bd2412 T 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What if a chunk of Earth-matter is made of single mineral but not "aggregate"?[edit]

What if a chunk of Earth-matter is made of single mineral but not "aggregate"? Suppose a continuous piece of diamond? or say a continuous piece of halite or obsidian?

Should we call it "a mineral, but not a rock"? or "a mineral, as well a rock"? RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Clastic sedimentary rocks such as breccia or sandstone are formed from mechanical weathering debris. Brandon157 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"Rocks and minerals" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rocks and minerals. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)