Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

 Main Organization Participants Open tasks Assessment Peer reviews Resources Showcase 

The meaning of stone

I (who am without a background in geology) have been looking at the layout of Stone (disambiguation) and at the incoming links to Stone. One of the main meanings of the term is one that I'd need help with. This is "stone" as an object, often a small one: one that you can for example pick up from the ground and toss into the water of a lake or use in a game of checkers. It can also be bigger: for example, the stone you may put as a waymarker at a fork in the footpath.

Which article covers this meaning? That's clearly not Rock (geology), as our focus is not on the substance of the object (and whether its origin is, say, igneous or sedimentary). I would think clast is the concept that covers this particular meaning, but that title is a redirect to Clastic rock, which is hardly any better. The most relevant content appears to reside in the series of articles Pebble, Cobble (geology) and Boulder, but they're dependent on the size of the stone. – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right, this is stupid. The answer is I think a new article on clast, distinct from clastic rock - though the topics clearly massively overlap and both articles would need significant attention... A separate article would be warranted on other grounds as well as just stone (disambiguation) - now you've brought it up, I recall this redirect has previously irritated me. The easy answer would be to pirate the relevant bits out of Clastic rock for a new article, but this is IIUC frowned upon. Trying to move stuff out of clastic rock and refer to clast would be better, but probably controversial... DanHobley (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Update to project portal

I've changed the project portal to geology rather than earth sciences after updating the Geology portal.

I believe it would be best to create a separate WikiProject for Earth Sciences in order to manage the overall topic rather than the individual sub-topics. Trying to manage geology topics is a project of it's own and other Earth Science related subjects such as oceanography, weather, climate change, environment, etc. would likely benefit from a dedicated project with the aim of enhancing the categorization and linkage amongst the relevant subtopics. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 17:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody cares about portals. They've been moribund for years and many have already been deleted because nobody uses them. Wikiprojects are mostly useful as a place where interested editors gather and discuss. This Wikiproject serves as a useful place to discuss all earth sciences related topics, there is no need to create another Wikiproject to divide discussion amongst the already small set of editors who frequent here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what the issue with a useful portal would be.@Hemiauchenia I believe a lot of the issue was the excessive creation of sub-standard portals that were auto-generated or lacked substance. I see portals as modular gateways to a topic that provides a pleasing interface in lieu of an index, list, or category page. Many very long articles on general topics are often easier to navigate by simply visiting the relevant portal instead.

Having Earth Sciences like Climate, Atmospheric science, and the like managed by the Geology project just makes things confusing imho. If there does not seem to be people interested in geology than it would make sense to just change it to the Earth science project. With doing so it would also be likely that all the other earth science subtopics would be similar and therefore be merged into the project as well.

I do not feel this is the case though. I believe that there is good reason to have a portal and project for each major branch of earth sciences in order to ensure focus and encourage participation. If a topic is too general, it can seem overwhelming and discourage participation. By keeping it more specific (but not too specific) it allows more manageable tasks. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 18:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody cares about portals. Nobody reads them. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_189#Proposal_to_change_portal_links_on_the_Main_Page. You are not an active contributor to this projects talkpage or any other projects talkpage. You have less than 500 contributions to Wikipedia total over having been here over one year. You obviously have no actual experience of how Wikiprojects work. There are only a handful of editors who actively edit and discuss the earths sciences. You are seemingly completely clueless about the fact that there are a fuckton of completely dead wikiprojects. This is one of the handful of Wikiprojects that actually active. There is no need to create more dead on arrival Wikiprojects. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, I care about portals and am somebody therefore I consider your first statement nullified. I don't see you really adding any new information and simply see this as an ad hominem argument. Responses as yours likely have a lot to do with the lack of project participation which you seem to be using as a reason against my argument. @Hemiauchenia

By participating in this conversation I believe it counts as activity in the project. I plan on continuing activities in this project as well. The reason for adding myself is for being sent notifications to assist in participation. I may not have your level of experience yet in activity on Wikipedia however assuming I am not condescended or chastised for my opinion I may yet reach that level one day. I will mention that I am quite familiar with project and task management in general outside of Wikipedia having managed a complex real-time product distribution service.

In regards to the large amount of inactive WikiProjects, that could be considered a being a possible result of being two generalized and not having a scope that one studying a particular subfield might want to participate in. A dendrologist may not want to necessarily be a part of a huge Earth science project and might want something a bit more specific that seems more manageable.

As long as each project is thoughtfully considered on a case by case basis, I think there is potential to increase usage while increasing the specificity over time with more membership. Terrickisaiah555 ^[T]/_[C] 19:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Armored mud ball

New article, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

looks very interesting! Licks-rocks (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Nadir crater

Nadir crater, a supposed impact feature off of the coast of West Africa was announced recently. There's no real confirmation that it is indeed an impact feature, and the claim made by the authors that it occurred at the exact same time as the Chicxulub impact makes me sceptical, given the numerous dubious impact claims that we've previously discussed. The current article is in my opinion too credulous of the single study on it and its uncritical media splash (for instance treating the interpretation of the feature as an impact feature as a given), and needs to be rewritten. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, based on my experience of interpreting this kind of data, the evidence presented makes a good case for an impact origin. I would classify it as probable but unconfirmed on the proposed marine impact crater identification template created by Tsikalas and Eldholm (2019) Figure 5. Your rewriting, however, was certainly required and now shows a reasonable balance between speculation and evidence. If it's ever drilled by the IODP we'll know for sure. Mikenorton (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Open Access paper reviewing terrestrial impact record

The below open access paper should be useful for working with Wikipedia articles about impact craters.

Osinski, G.R., Grieve, R.A., Ferrière, L., Losiak, A., Pickersgill, A., Cavosie, A.J., Hibbard, S.M., Hill, P., Bermudez, J.J., Marion, C.L. and Newman, J.D., 2022. Impact Earth: A review of the terrestrial impact record. Earth-Science Reviews, no. 104112. Open access

• Researchgate version, preprint, of above paper

• Richard F. Grieve papers (PDFs)

• Gordon R. Osinski papers (PDFs)

Paul H. (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dispute over glaciation during the Pliensbachian in Timeline of glaciation article

In the Timeline of glaciation article, a couple of editors are disputing text over the possibility of a glaciation / icehouse climate during the Pliensbachian. I do not know enough to help out and a Jurassic expert might be able to help out. Discussion of a glaciation during the Pliensbachian is discussed in the Paleogeography section and in footnotes 12, 13, and 14 of Drzewica Formation. The specific edits are Latest revision as of 06:24, 21 August 2022 and Revision as of 03:38, 20 August 2022. Paul H. (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent papers about possible Pliensbachian cryosphere are:

Platon Tchoumatchenco, M.P. and Yaneva, M., 2008. Did glaciation occur during the Toarcian (Early Jurassic) in the East Stara Planina Mts.(East Bulgaria)?. Comptes rendus de l’Académie bulgare des Sciences, 61(10).

Ruebsam, W. and Schwark, L., 2021. Impact of a northern-hemispherical cryosphere on late Pliensbachian–early Toarcian climate and environment evolution. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 514(1), pp.359-385.

Ruebsam, W., Reolid, M., Sabatino, N., Masetti, D. and Schwark, L., 2020. Molecular paleothermometry of the early Toarcian climate perturbation. Global and Planetary Change, 195, no. 103351.

More papers at Wolfgang Ruebsam Researchgate page. Paul H. (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I am the only person here who remotely qualifies as a "Jurassic expert" having wrote the article on it. As far as I tell, the idea that the first half of the Early Jurassic was a relatively cool period is widely accepted. The idea that the Pleinsbachian was glaciated seems to be relatively recent. I don't have any idea how much of a consensus there is for it, though there is clearly some support. I think there's been enough literature on it to maybe merit it's inclusion on the article, but I don't have a strong view about this issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Giant current ripples VS submarine dunes

I'm currently working on a rewrite of Giant current ripples, trying to get rid of the enormous Russian section while leaving a legible article behind. But I am a bit unclear on the difference between giant current ripples and normal submarine dunes in rivers. I am hoping someone here with more knowledge about bedforms than me might be able to help me out. Is just it a matter of energy in the environment? what are the shape differences? (current version of rewrite can be found here) Licks-rocks (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is not any difference. For example Burr et al. (2002:59) states:

"Thus, despite their name (from Bretz et al. 1956), “giant current ripples” are not true ripples, which are only responsive to boundary conditions, but sub-aqueous dunes, which are responsive to the hydraulic flow (Yalin 1972, pp. 217–231). In more recent work, therefore, fluvial sedimentologists (e.g., Carling 1996) have classified such features as giant dunes, gravel dunes, or transverse dunes."

The majority of the papers that I have found about Martian “giant current ripples” call them either "transverse dunes" or "aqueous dunes."

References Cited

Bretz, J. H., H. T. U. Smith, and G. E. Neff 1956. Channeled Scabland of Washington: New data and interpretations. Geolog. Soc. Amer. Bull. 67, 957–1049.

Burr, D.M., Grier, J.A., McEwen, A.S. and Keszthelyi, L.P., 2002. Repeated aqueous flooding from the Cerberus Fossae: Evidence for very recently extant, deep groundwater on Mars. Icarus, 159(1), pp.53-73.

Carling, P. A. 1996. Morphology, sedimentology and palaeohydraulic significance of large gravel dunes, Altai Mountains, Siberia. Sedimentology 43, 647–664.

Yalin, M. S. 1972. Mechanics of Sediment Transport. Pergamon, Oxford. Paul H. (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional note: PDFs of papers about megaflooding can be found on Dr. Paul Carling's Researchgate web page. Paul H. (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think "marine" is a problem here - many examples are found in (former) rivers or (former) freshwater bodies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Extrapolating from these answers, is a separate article on giant current ripples even worth having, or should we instead be writing one on subaqueous dunes and then merge the current article into that? I guess they could be considered as a separate thing in the context of large flooding events, but is that alone enough to sustain an entire article? --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

FAR for iridium

I have nominated Iridium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 15:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Split proposed for Cave diving

The article is large. I have proposed splitting out the content on Cave diving regions. Discussion at Talk:Cave diving#Due for a split some time. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Mount Garibaldi at FAC

Hi, Mount Garibaldi is at FAC for the first time since 2008. Any comments/supports are welcomed. Volcanoguy 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)