Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Hyphen vs. dash

A user has moved the following article titles so they have a dash insted of a hyphen:

I believe this is an error because they are names for mid-ocean ridges and they are not normally dashed. I tried moving the titles back to their original hyphen titles but a bot has edited the redirects since they were moved so the redirects have to be deleted for them to be moved back to their original titles. Help regarding this issue would be great. Thanks. Volcanoguy 19:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Makes me wonder why the user didn't move Mid-Atlantic Ridge to Mid–Atlantic Ridge. Volcanoguy 17:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
They've all been moved back again and one more - American-Antarctic Ridge. Mikenorton (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure the conventional usage is really that clear. I added a reference to Pacific–Antarctic Ridge that shows Science journal using a hyphen; but Fowler's text (see page 89 at the Google books site) uses dashes; and WP:ENDASH does prescribe dashes for examples like this ("2. In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between"). Maybe it's not worth fighting over. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
They are most commonly have hyphens insted of dashes so I would think that would fall in WP:COMMONNAME. Volcanoguy 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Dan Mine

Hello. Could someone please do a peer review for the Big Dan Mine article? The peer review can be found here. Thanks. Volcanoguy 22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi all. I just added levee to WP:Geology. A number of us have been linking to this page from a number of solidly geology pages, but A. the article is rubbish on natural levees, B. it was listed solely under climate type stuff. These were clearly related problems! If anyone of a geomorphological/sedimentological/hydrological bent has a spare minute, please head over there and make some additions. I'll do it if I get time, but you know how it is... DanHobley (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start. Further tweaks welcome. DanHobley (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You added a section without a reference, you should add a schoolbook reference ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed! I only didn't as I want access to the textbooks I left at work... Refs go in on monday! DanHobley (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ioi Mine" or "Loi Mine"?

I have an issue that I've come across regarding the name of a mine in Shiga Prefecture, Japan. The article I'm writing is here in my sandbox. The type locality is either Ioi Mine or Loi Mine. One is almost surely a transcription error of the other, but which is correct?

Samples of Loi:

Samples of Ioi:

Also, "'Ioi mine' shiga prefecture" receives 1540 hits on Google, to 7 for "'Loi mine' shiga prefecture". Chris857 (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Museum Victoria Collection Object: Shigaite Japan Ioi mine. Registration Number: M 42737
Seven times Ioi mine, on three japanese papers, on two titles [1]
Ioi mine should be ok --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fault-block move

(Discuss) requested move Fault-block mountainFault-block --Bejnar (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: moved to Fault block. --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Karoo System to Karoo Supergroup

Proposed merger of Karoo System article into the Karoo Supergroup article. Discussion at Talk:Karoo Supergroup#Merge from Karoo System). --Bejnar (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Importance assessment

The above discussion on geologists inspired me to think about our importance assessments. The article scores generated by Wikipedia Release Version are useful guides because they combine several measures of importance. (As an example of how to use this tool, to get the list of Top-importance articles sorted by score, go to this page; enter Top for importance and click on Generate list.) To get an estimate of the article scores unbiased by our assessments, subtract amounts from the following table:

Rating Top High Mid Low
Points 400 300 200 100

The range of total and adjusted scores are below:

Importance Total score Adjusted total
Top 1286-2132 886-1732
High 518-1907 218-1607
Mid 632-1692 432-1492
Low 248-1563 148-1463
??? 70-1350 N/A

I am amazed by how much overlap there is between priority levels; and there are some potentially High-importance articles that have no assessment! (Here is the list).

Also, compared to Wikipedia as a whole, we seem to be reluctant to grant top priority to articles. Below, I give the numbers for each priority level and what they would be if they had the same ratios as Wikipedia as a whole:

Type Top High Mid Low
Actual 26 265 889 2671
WP-like 59 225 825 2742

So it may make sense to adjust the lists so there are more Top-priority articles and less overlap. Here is one possible scheme:

Importance Adjusted total Total Files to move
Top 1100+ 1500+ 8 down
High 850-1200 1150-1500 41 up, 107 down
Mid 500-950 700-1150 140 up, 351 down
Low up to 600 up to 700 373 up

Now, of course, this can only be a guide, and common sense is required. The assessments also include a number for the quality assessment, so articles of low importance that are FA-quality could be rated higher than they otherwise deserve; and stubs could be underrated (it was too difficult to correct for quality in the above tables). Here is the table for quality ratings:

Rating Featured article FA Featured list FL A-Class article A GA B C Start Other
Points 500 500 400 400 300 225 150 0

In particular, the Start-class, Top-priority articles would be solidly in the Top-priority range if they were B quality. If the suggested scores are used, the following would be demoted from Top-importance to High-importance: History of the Earth, Subduction, Geochronology, Petrology, Geologist, Geochemistry, Geological history of Earth and History of geology. The following would be promoted from High-importance to Top-importance: Global warming, Yellowstone National Park, Mount St. Helens, Continent, Coal, River, Glacier, Tsunami, and 33 others (here is the list]). There are good reasons for disagreeing with some of these moves, but the above criteria are very useful for identifying which articles might need reassessing.

One thing is indisputable: those unassessed articles with high scores should be assessed! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think care should be taken when using the Release Version data as a guide for assessing article importance for particular WikiProjects, because unless I am mistaken the scores are partially determined by number of page views, yet it isn't possible for any particular WikiProject to know what percentage of those views are by people interested in the particular aspect of the article which is of concern to the WikiProject. For example, are lots of readers viewing the Mount St. Helens article because they have an interest in its geology, or because big bangs are exciting, and this was the biggest in recent US history? (I'm not saying that's not a valid reason for viewing the article, nor that the eruption and its geology aren't connected, but rather as a WikiProject it isn't possible to know why an article might get a lot of hits, and there are likely to be factors involved which have little to do with the WikiProject's focus.) Another example is Yellowstone National Park, which I think is likely to get views as a result of being arguably the most famous US National Park, but not necessarily because of the geological aspects. Another example: Subduction as a topic is probably less interesting to general readers than tsunami, simply by virtue of the fact that it's the tsunami that kills people and features in countless videos in news media - news programmes never broadcast headlines stating people have been killed by subduction, even though of course tsunamis are frequently caused by it. Yet surely subduction is the more significant article from a geological point of view? I am not myself advocating any particular order or ranking, rather just advising caution when interpreting data. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You've raised an important point, for instance I'm not sure that I would go above 'Low' for the importance of 'waterfalls' in geology (I'm not sure that it should be in the project at all, if I'm honest). Mikenorton (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I have already listed lots of caveats, and had already had the same thoughts about Mount St. Helens and Yellowstone National Park; but on the other hand, when a project has over 8,000 articles, of which 4,000 have not been assessed for importance, where do you start? I think a lot of the moves suggested by the scoring would be appropriate. I admit, though, I was on autopilot when I assessed waterfall! Maybe it shouldn't be in our project. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I reassessed Waterfall as low importance. The article does mention lots of geological features, so it might as well be in our project. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Waterfall, from my soft-rock perspective it should definitely stay in the project. It's a valid and important geomorphic feature, and geomorph is within this project's scope. I'd say mid for the importance, but won't quibble too much on that. DanHobley (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Ha! I also see that there's a whole WP: waterfalls! Wow. I presume the article will be top importance for those guys!DanHobley (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for improving article assessments - I don't think that this is a major problem, just something to be aware of when using that kind of data. Mikenorton (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mikenorton. In a way, if an article gets longer it gets more hits and then it gets more important. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big problem either - I'm just providing some useful information and uncovering a few facts you may not be aware of. If you want to improve the assessments, it's a good place to start. If you don't want to, then why are you discussing them? My research was inspired by someone wondering why Wegener's article had such a low rating. A perusal of the scores would have uncovered many of the rating problems for geologists without waiting for a comment on a talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It has in fact provided a very useful way of approaching this - I've been concentrating on those articles with relatively high ratings and both class and importance unassessed. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed! And I think that assessing the unassessed is the most important goal. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Chris - If for "article length" you substitute "quality assessment", then to a great extent it's a neutral factor. Articles in the region of overlap between Top-importance and High-importance tend to be clustered around B-class; articles in the overlap between Mid and Low tend to be Start-quality. You can adjust for deviations, as in the example I provided above; but in the end you still have to use your own judgment. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
In a way the snake bite its tail, Mikenorton's approach is a good one ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing I have found interesting is that the top of the High-importance list is packed with geological periods. When I have considered importance before my thought process has tended to be: Geological history of Earth covers all of the periods, so it must be more important than, say, Cretaceous. However, it is just a summary, and more people seem to be interested in looking at the periods separately (history - 7600; Cretaceous - 48000). So why shouldn't they be top-importance? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, the reason is obvious. If you're looking at an article on Dinosaurs and there is a reference to the Cretaceous, you follow a link to the Cretaceous, not the overall history of the Earth. Eons and epochs are also frequently visited, but not as much as periods. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to report that, since the previous message, about 800 unassessed articles have been assessed (most as either Mid- or High-importance). Thank you, Mikenorton (talk), for chipping away at the daunting unassessed list. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • There are no longer any articles in this WikiProject that have not been assessed for Quality (at least for now). Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That's great! Thanks for doing that. I don't know if we'll ever assess them all for importance. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, we can just do what we've been doing (perhaps not quite so intensively) and we'll whittle it down eventually. Mikenorton (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The only project I know of that is completely on top of assessments is Physics, and they have over 16,000 articles! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Articles with unassessed importance are now only in the Start and Stub categories. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There are now 2190 unassessed articles, still 27% of the total. All the remaining articles are probably low importance. Maybe it would make sense to rate them all automatically, if that can be done with a bot. A few errors in ratings are not very important, considering that they are not assessed at all right now. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll scan through the remaining ones (actually 2120 by my reckoning), as I have picked up a few 'mid's as I've gone through them. A lot of the remaining are articles on fossil genera that would be of low importance for Palaeontology, let alone Geology - I've been moving such over to WP Palaeo with their encouragement. Mikenorton (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Moving those articles is a good idea. Perhaps low-importance mineral articles should be moved to WP Rocks and Minerals. Those two categories alone account for most of the unassessed articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd been wondering about that, but I think that you'll find that they're already all in WP Rocks and Minerals and I decided not to take them out of WP Geology - maybe I was wrong. Mikenorton (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a tougher decision because WP Rocks and Minerals was dormant for some time, and now it has one active editor. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


I have a comment that might be better made at the Periods task force were it not that the task force appears to be dead.

Most of the articles on geological eons/periods/etc. are loaded down with time templates. A little article like Lutetian has three, while Cretaceous has five! Which ones do they really need? My preference would be to have one navbox at the top, linking to related intervals, and a detailed sidebar that shows notable events. Sidebars are good for quick reference. For periods, I like {{Geological period}} and {{Cretaceous graphical timeline}}. One that I see very little use for is the cumbersome {{Geological history}}. For epochs and periods, just a single timeline like {{paleogene}} might do, although streamlined equivalents of {{Cretaceous graphical timeline}} might be better. Any thoughts? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right; there's a lot of redundancy here. It's just confusing to non-specialists. I agree that the {{Geological period}} and {{Cretaceous graphical timeline}} are the best and clearest type. The {{XXX footer}} kind to me are totally redundant, and should be removed. However, while I agree {{Geological history}} looks terrible and isn't actually fit for purpose, it does - in principle at least - add extra information by placing the period/eon/etc into the whole history context. The geol. period and graphical timelines don't do this. (For what it's worth, I quite liked the Symbolic list of periods nestling above the global map on, e.g., Cretaceous).
I think we should standardize to one vertical age column and one "whole timeline" summary figure/table (which does not exist adequately to my knowledge). Get rid of the footers entirely. Credit to the now-defunct task force for getting internal consistency here though. Even things like colours for the stages are constant across pages, and we need to focus on keeping that. DanHobley (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Although {{Geological history}} places the geological unit into the whole history, I find the result singularly unenlightening. Too much information presented at once can be as bad as too little. I like the way {{Cretaceous graphical timeline}} does it: a thin bar at the left represents the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. You can click on those to get the next level. And there is the age scale on the far left. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP Geology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this article is scheduled for May 28. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
We're live ;) (07:09 Wednesday, May 30th 2012) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

List of fault lines

As per request on the Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#Environment_and_geology page I started a List of fault lines. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the structure of the table. So far I am the only editor and could really use a second opinion :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How long will your list be, what are u excluding? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a good start! You should try to find a suitable reference to establish notability for this list (see notability criteria for stand-alone lists). In the lead, you should try to provide clear criteria for suitable additions to the list (see List selection criteria). Also check out the rest of the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Today's featured article

Today's featured article is about a geologist, Mary Anning (see blurb). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Could someone who knows a little more about coal than me (that could be anyone actually) have a look at these edits to Anthracite, I have removed the EL to a specific coal project in BC, but don't know about the rest of the edits.--kelapstick(bainuu) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a look, it seems a good faith edit Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I looked through the edits but couldn't find any major problems (I'm also not a coal expert). The classification seems a little odd (and un-sourced). Definitely centered on the US-classification. There is a table comparing international classifications of coal on commons: Coal Classification (in german). Can anyone find a source for these high grade und ultra high grade anthracite classifications? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
USA (ATM) and German (DIN): Energierohstoffe 2009: Reserven, Ressourcen, Verfügbarkeit, Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Hannover, Seite 21, ISBN 978-3-9813373-1-0 on image
How about this one --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
@Christ.urs-o: Thanks for the source and the table. The different coal articles would be really improved by a table that explains the reasoning behind all this pigeon-holing of coal. Maybe I can find some time and do a vector drawing :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The same user that made the changes to Anthracite also created the page High grade anthracite. I guess those two articles should be merged (WP:DICTIONARY). --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Merger discussion is at Talk:Anthracite#Merging High grade anthracite into this page (Anthracite). --Bejnar (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, they looked fine to me, but all I know about coal is it burns :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Crystal systems

Hello Folks, first post on this project talk page, though I've been quietly adding wp Geology banners to articles and so forth for a while. The articles on crystal systems could do with someone slighty more skilled than me looking at them, and it's probably worth noting that it looks like physics and chemistry wikiprojects may use slightly different terms. Lattice, Miller indices and crystal model. Could we make a template (something like Template:Map Projections) to show all the crystal systems, and paste that at the bottom of each crystal system article, letting you navigate around them, and maybe also have a section on ways to identify/measure them perhaps sorting them by angle/number of faces or something. EdwardLane (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Crystal systems: there are 6 crystal families, 7 lattice systems, 32 crystallographic point groups and 230 space groups. A template for the seven lattice systems is good enough. It gets too complicated with all space groups and notations ;) It's not very interesting, you need a laboratory to determine it. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Symmetry axis in the tri-dimensional space is dry mathematics, most people don't care very much about it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Prenephelean and Chaotian Eons, and Hadean eras and periods

Has anybody seen this paper? I think we should revise our Geologic Timescale and articles to follow this. It creates a new standard and the Hadean eon with the Cryptic, Basing Groups, Nectarian, and Lower Imbrian eras are informal anyway, but this seemingly has NASA's support. The ICS still doesn't recognize the Hadean, so this would have priority over the currently used Hadean era system here. Jntg4Games (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that the paper states that it is a proposal - I think that we would need evidence that it has met some degree of acceptance in the Earth Science community. Mikenorton (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Would articles about the proposed eons, eras, and periods be appropriate if it is strictly mentioned that they are simply "proposed"? Jntg4Games (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely seems appropriate to make articles about the proposed terminology, but we shouldn't yet be adjusting existing timescales used throughout the geology pages. A sentence somewhere discreet in Geological timescale and Hadean may also be appropriate, but not much more unless this gets widely adopted (i.e., wait 5 years!). DanHobley (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright. What I gathered from other wikipedia articles about the dates of the boundaries described in the article would mean that Nephelean starts at 4680 MYA, Erebrean at 4630 MYA, Hyperitian at 4567 MYA, and Titanomachean at 4560 MYA, and the Hadean at 4500 MYA. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Way too early for articles, and rather undue weight for the coverage in Hadean. One article proposing the names is rather insufficient. Google search on Prenephelean Eon returned exactly 5 hits: the WP Hadean article, two pdf copies of the article mentioned, one foreign language, and one deadlink. So, no to articles on the proposed names. Vsmith (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Chaotian gets a lot more though. Jntg4Games (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dorset geology map - help required

The Dorset article is currently a Featured Article candidate; would someone be able to cast a glance over the article's geology map, to check for anything amiss? Specifically I have concern about the way it uses the term "Oolitic", though I'm not knowledgeable enough to assert with confidence. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that where they have used, upper middle and lower oolite they are refering to a particular time period - and so I think they are using old terminology in the key, where it says middle oolite clay I think it should for instance now say middle oxfordian stage clay. I may be incorrect about that (I'm thinking back 15 years to using the term Middle Oolite and being suprised that it wasn't all oolitic limestone). EdwardLane (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This is fairly out-of-date terminology. The sequence should go 'Lias Group', 'Inferior Oolite Group', 'Great Oolite Group' ('Fuller's Earth Formation', 'Frome Clay Formation', 'Forest Marble Formation', 'Cornbrash Formation'), 'Kellaways Formation', 'Oxford Clay Formation', 'Corallian Group', 'Kimmeridge Clay Formation', 'Portland Group', 'Purbeck Group', 'Wealden Group', 'Lower Greensand Group', 'Gault Formation', 'Upper Greensand Formation', 'Chalk Group', 'Lambeth Group' and 'Thames Group'. Some of the matches to the older units look simple, others not so simple. Mikenorton (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. Yes, the map seems to clump quite a few groups/formations together. Drawing a new map from scratch will probably be too long a process given the time constraints, but we (at the Dorset WikiProject) might have time to re-label the existing map. Does the following look like a reasonable translation of the map's terms?:
"Lias" → Lias Group
"Lower Oolite cornbrash" → Inferior Oolite Group and Great Oolite Group
"Middle Oolite clay" → Kellaways Formation and Oxford Clay Formation
"Upper Oolite limestone" → Corallian Group, Kimmeridge Clay Formation and Portland Group
"Purbeck Limestone" → Purbeck Group
"Wealden clay" → Wealden Group
"Upper Greensand and Gault" → Lower Greensand Group, Gault Formation and Upper Greensand Formation
"Chalk" → Chalk Group
"Lower Eocene clays" → Lambeth Group
"Upper Eocene clays and sands" → Thames Group
Also, would such labelling be acceptable (e.g. the Portland Group doesn't appear in all the areas that the map labels as "Upper Oolite limestone")? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this tomorrow evening - what sort of timescale are we talking about to produce a revised map? Mikenorton (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Mikenorton. I've been asked to respond to your query by PCW. This is my first experience of the Featured Article process and timescales appear to be imposed on a case by case basis but Good Article nominations usually stay open for 7 days.--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ykraps, I'll attempt to produce a revised map (actually a new map with the current BGS stratigraphy) by the end of Sunday, which hopefully won't be too late. I've already begun the process - I'll see where I've got to on Saturday evening and provide a progress report. Mikenorton (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be great. Really appreciate you giving your time to this.--Ykraps (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
About 80-90% done. Should be available some time tomorrow. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, finished now and added it to the Geology of Dorset article. It lacks some of the information (places, hills and rivers) on the older map, although they could be added - I'll look at that later, but for now just checking that the increased detail (which came with the redrawing and the up-to-date stratigraphy) is what you were after. Mikenorton (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that is a far more detailed map than I was expecting. Nice work! It would have been nice to have the places and rivers from a navigational point of view but far more important to have the extra detail and up to date terminology. Thanks very much!--Ykraps (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Typography of double-barrelled names

Looks like I wrongly moved this article from hyphen to dash, but then I see lots of siblings with just a space between the first and second name of the person's name (here Dr Whyville Thomson). Sourcess seem to be mixed. Could people advise? I don't care whichever way. Talk:Wyville–Thomson_Ridge Tony (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to "space" version. Vsmith (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll move any similar (first/second name) titles accordingly, if I find them. Tony (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Marine terrace

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Marine terrace , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Foldo Squirrel (nuts?) 19:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Talk:Levee#Requested move Levee → Dyke
I thought that levee is a standard geologic term, am I right? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In my experience, yes. Redirecting to 'dyke' would be extremely problematic. Mikenorton (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw ur intervention. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Geologic Time Scale 2012

Do we stick with ICS or Gradstein and Ogg's The Geologic Time Scale 2012? I'm sure the ICS will adapt the new system after the book officially comes out this month, but do we wait for ICS as a consensus? And will we cover anything of the new proposal for the Precambrian subdivision in the book? Obviously not adapting it fully. (Hadean was divided into Chaotian and Jack Hillsian/Zirconian eras), Archean into Paleoarchean with Acastan and Isuan periods, Mesoarchean with Vaalbaran and Pongolan, Neoarchean with Methanian and Siderian, Paleoproterozoic with Oxygenian, Jatulian, and Columbian, Mesoproterozoic with just the Rodinian, and Neoproterozoic with just the Cryogenian and Ediacaran) Jntg4Games (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "I'm sure ..."
Well "I'm sure" is original research ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Automatically assess?

As described in the Importance assessment section, I would like to have AnomieBot rank as low importance all of the articles in this list. I am told this is feasible (see this discussion). All of the articles that are likely to be of higher importance have already been assessed. MikeNorton is moving many unassessed articles on fossil genera over to WP Palaeo, but it would be just as easy to do that for low-importance articles. There might be a few articles that are rated too low, but that is no worse than not being rated at all. However, we need consensus to do this. Comments? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I say do it. There's a few in that list I might quibble with, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. DanHobley (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Do it. But I could not view the list, getting a 403 error: "You are not allowed to view this page. " --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Me too, looks like the toolserver has a problem. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the automatic assessment - I think that we've picked up any that might be 'mid'. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have consensus. I have put in a request. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

At last - AnomieBOT has acted! Category:Unknown-importance Geology articles is now empty! Unfortunately, the change won't show up in the assessment table because the WP 1.0 bot is down. Oh, well - one step at a time! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Now the assessment table shows only two unassessed articles! I have assessed both. If we keep an eye on the table we can maintain a near-100% assessment rate. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lake Michigan–Huron

Lake Michigan–Huron is little different from many obscure geographic entities which have their own articles, and yet has been repeatedly deleted over the past few days without RfD discussion. Several commenters have explicitly said they're upset with it because it's not what they learned in school, and opposing editors have presented such rationals as it doesn't exist, the sources don't exist, the sources don't say what they say, or that it's FRINGE since it's just hydrology (which is therefore a pseudoscience?). Comments from editors actually conversant in geography would be welcome. — kwami (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that article looks like a world of pain, editing-wise. "Look like a palm tree"!? I'll gladly keep an eye, from a scientific-but-not-expert point of view. DanHobley (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The article has not been deleted (one of Kwami many disembling statements lately), it's merely been moved to a section of Great Lakes, specifically, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron. And none of the commenters have made anything like the statement that they objected to a separate article because it "wasn't what they learned in school" (another bit of dissembling from Kwami), what they have said is that every source provided by Kwami has said that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron can be considered to be a single lake hydrologically. Not a single source has said that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not separate lakes. Kwami seems determined to push an extremely WP:FRINGEy viewpoint that there is no Lake Michigan and there is no Lake Huron, there is only Lake Michigan-Huron. Unfortunately, he's not been able to provide a single source which supports this.

Editors should read this AN/I thread and this section of the "Great Lakes" article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Point taken: I've been sloppy in using the word 'delete' for removing the article on the surface while leaving the page history intact.
There have been editors in previous debates who were upset because this contradicted what they learned in school.
No-one is arguing that Huron and Michigan are not separate lakes, only that they're one lake. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a lot has happened and been discussed at those 3 places and it is not as Kwami described. North8000 (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Apart from my non-technical use of the word 'delete', you have yet to show how things are not as I describe. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Utopia: the enemy of Wikipedia is lies and censorship. An experienced editor should reach consensus with experienced editors, and vice versa. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Kwami is a defrocked admin who should know better than to edit-war and make stuff up. Although maybe that kind of thing is how he got de-sysopped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added my thoughts over at Talk:Great_Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron: An outsider's perspective. Please, as repeatedly noted there, WP:AGF. Note that I have not delved into the historical standing of this topic on WP, nor into the personal politics of the interested parties - as, frankly, that has nothing to do with the issue. I've looked at sources independent from WP in formulating my thoughts. (Polite) comments extremely welcome. DanHobley (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Good thoughts. Thumbs up. See my response. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Just because they didn't learn about Lake Michigan-Huron in school dosen't make it a good reason for the article to be deleted or merged. I remember someone telling me that they asked their teacher if there are any volcanoes in Ontario and he said no. But there is. Volcanoguy 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The merge discussion is now at Talk:Great_Lakes#Merge_proposal. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, so what? Volcanoguy 02:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is scattered into at least 7 different places

The discussion on this is scattered into about 7 different places. In (roughly) descending order of amount of material they are:

  1. WP:ANI#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes
  2. Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron
  3. Talk:Great Lakes
  4. User_talk:kwamikagami
  5. User_talk:North8000
  6. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology
  7. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography

So each of these locations is MISSING least 3/4 of the important material and discussions North8000 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this was meant as a heads-up, not as yet another discussion. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this mess exists because the proper procedure for a controversial merge was not followed. I have reverted the merger, tagged the articles, and started the discussion at talk:Great Lakes#Merge proposal. I need someone in favor of the proposal to provide the rationale. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points

I started to update the List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points which is listed in our update section right now. I'm also adding geographic coordinates and references to the list. Would be nice to get some help because it's a whole lot of data and I could easily make a mistake. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know how I can automatically generate a world map from a list of gps coordinates? It would be nice to see where the GSSPs are located. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing. Seems like the GSSPs have a northern hemisphere bias :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I have added coordinates and references to six of the 12 blocks. I also added golden spike symbols for a quick assesment of the GSSP status. Can someone give me some feedback concerning this new layout. You can also compare it to the german version of the table. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please Verify The Duration of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake as Being 2 Days and 8 Hours

The edit here at 2008 Sichuan earthquake was done by a Wikipedian that only came here and made 1 edit and probably created a page on himself that was speedyed. I am wondering if someone can verify the duration of the earthquake lasting 2 Days and 8 Hours? I can't find anything on this right now as I thought it only lasted a few minutes. Please Help! Sawblade5 (talk to me | my wiki life) 19:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the vandalism and added a news ref for the duration of about 2-3 minutes. Chris857 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

He's dead, Jim. Really? How can you tell?

Main page links to an article which links to Albian. In the Palaeontology (sic) sections there are symbols '†' leading the subsection names, ala Albian#.E2.80.A0Ankylosaurs. There is no explanation I can find for this symbol. I'm going to guess it is to indicate those orders which are now extinct. Albian#Crocodylomorphs does not have the mark as crocodiles/etc. still exist?

Dagger (typography)#Modern_usage (second paragraph) does mention extinction.... Could you figure out or remember how to treat these marks, such as linking the first couple or all to extinction, and fix this usage or say what the correct process is? Shenme (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Category:Plantae you see the symbol '†' (extinct) in use, all groups now extinct get this symbol as a note. Specially diagrams on en.wikipedia and de.wikipedia. If I remember it right. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Revise the Time Scale!

ICS has officially accepted Gradstein and Ogg's Geologic Time Scale 2012, as seen now on their site: . Gradstein and Ogg also made proposals for a revised Precambrian time scale, without officially including it (but it is in the book they published the time scale in), that I think is also worth a mention on the Time Scale, Precambrian, Proterozoic, Archean, and Hadean pages, that goes like this:

  • Hadean Eon - 4568-4030 MYA
    • Chaotian Era - 4568-4404 MYA
    • Jack Hillsian or Zirconian Era - 4404-4030 MYA
  • Archean Eon - 4030-2420 MYA
    • Paleoarchean Era - 4030-3490 MYA
      • Acastan Period - 4030-3810 MYA
      • Isuan Period - 3810-3490 YA
    • Mesoarchean Era - 3490-2780 MYA
      • Vaalbaran Period - 3490-3020 MYA
      • Pongolan Period - 3020-2780 MYA
    • Neoarchean Era - 2780-2420 MYA
      • Methanian Period - 2780-2630 MYA
      • Siderian Period - 2630-2420 MYA
  • Proterozoic Eon - 2420-541 MYA
    • Paleoproterozoic Era - 2420-1780 MYA
      • Oxygenian Period - 2420-2250 MYA
      • Eukaryian or Jatulian Period - 2250-2060 MYA
      • Columbian Period - 2060-1780 MYA
    • Mesoproterozoic Era - 1780-850 MYA
      • Rodinian Period - 1780-850 MYA
    • Neoproterozoic Era - 850-541 MYA
      • Cryogenian Period - 850-635 MYA
      • Ediacaran Period - 635-541 MYA

Yes, the Precambrian one is a mere proposal, but ICS has officially adopted the main time scale, so dates need to be updated at the very least. Jntg4Games (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested an update on the talk page of the time scale template. Mikenorton (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this project need more activity?

I sometimes have the feeling that there is far to little activity and interaction on the pages of this project. The discussion page has 120 watchers but there is only one posting a week. Page view statistics are in between 1 and 20 most of the time, although we have about 130 members on the participants page. I think that we need to come up with a ideas to get people to check in with the project at least once a week or at the very least once a month. How about a weekly news section, a newsletter, a facebook group? I'm sure some of you have better ideas. Maybe we should have a community manager that contacts people that have stopped contributing? A weekly chat session? An off topic chat were we could have meet and greets with new members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias1984 (talkcontribs) 11:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Voluntary work is work and an unpaid work. I'm happy with each review and each edit that pops up. This is the reality Tobias1984, we have to accept it and to live with it. There are only few hours available. A weekly news section, a newsletter, a facebook group use up these few hours in part too. I read sometime, that the average en.wikipedia contributor is less than 25 years old. Afterwards he gets a girlfriend, gets married and has a family, and no time to contribute. Cheers ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this project is doing well for its size (compare WP:WikiProject Meteorology, which has 6,325 articles but only one discussion this month). Almost 100% of relevant articles are assessed, vandalism gets stamped out rapidly, and the list of featured/good articles continues to grow. We even have a recent interview in The Signpost! You could try looking at the suggestions in suggestions for reviving WikiProjects (not that we are in need of reviving), but we're doing most of them already. Those 120 page watchers get notified when changes to this page occurs, and if they don't respond it's probably because the issue is not important to them. I suspect that some of your other ideas would only work with a larger project. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I also think that the project articles are going great. I guess what I would like to see is more activity on the project page itself. Afterall Wikiprojects are for collaboration and I think this collaboration would benefit from a little more interaction. Hopefully no is offended by me raising this question. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I know certain areas need more activity. For example, there appears to be very few users working on Canada-related geology articles. I spend most of my wiki-time working on Canada-related articles about igneous petrology and I occasionally work on articles about mines that are in my area, but one user doing all of the work is not enough. Volcanoguy 17:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I would actually be glad to help out with those topics if I knew anyone was looking for support. The problem I think with the project collaboration is that everything is so spread out. The main page has bots, watchlists, recent changes, article alerts. The discussion page has "tasks you can do". Open tasks has requested articles, article rating and general tasks. There is also an assessment and peer review page. Maybe this structure is not ideal for project members to quickly find out where their help is needed. I think it would be easier to have the most important tasks on one page. We could also have different collaboration of the month for different task forces (e.g. petrology, stratigraphy, ...). --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, how do you define "important"? All of those lists you mentioned are different attempts to prioritize the articles (note also the todo list at the top of this page). Maybe the Collaboration of the month would work if someone chose a good article and promoted it vigorously. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't only one for Canada, the problem is only half a dozen for the whole world. We're just so few. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Tobias1984 - good idea adding the todo list for the Collaboration of the Month! RockMagnetist (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'ts only a small change but it does give the front page an up to date feel. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fossil peer review

I have sent the article on Fossils for peer review.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryukyu Arc nominated for deletion

Perhaps it can be improved along the lines of Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Difficult subject. We have: Pacific Ring of Fire, Ryukyu Arc, Ryukyu Trench and Ryukyu Islands. And now we have a territorial conflict between China and Japan. A wise boy with editing capacity is needed ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It's quite clear the Ryukyu Arc shouldn't be merged or deleted. Volcanic arcs like this one include more than islands. Volcanoguy 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Geology of Russia

The article Geology of Russia turns out to be mostly a translation of a Russian article, and it's pretty bad. In Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate, there is the statement: "Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." I'd like to know what others think - is this translation worth the effort of saving or should it just be reverted? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the article can only be deciphered by people who are knowledgeable about the geology of Russia. It is way to telegraphic for a general audience. But I'm also unclear if deleting or saving would be the way to go, although I would lean towards deleting. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems a shame to kill it, as the text is very... informational. But any modified article will have to be a full rewrite. I say kill the article - but can we keep the text somewhere? Sandbox, maybe? DanHobley (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The original is at ru:Русский (or at uk:Геологія_Росії - I'm not sure which is really the original). A Google translation gives you essentially the same text. However, it might be easier to just copy it into a subpage of talk:Geology of Russia. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Should we add "Template : Rough translation" to the page? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's the tag I was looking for! If we think that the article can be improved, that would be good. However, it might be difficult to find someone with the right technical knowledge; and even in the original language it is probably too technical. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete it. Just did a google translate of uk:Геологія_Росії and it seems the same - without section headers. (the ru wiki article seems different?) It is also unsourced, so anyone trying to salvage the copy would have to find sources. Seems it might be easier to start anew -- with the uk:wiki article as mayhaps a starting point. Anyone with access to the needed refs and a minimum of language background is welcome to go for it. Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Is it not better to turn it into a Geology-stub with the section headers and the openning sentence? The wikilinks exist. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Google has a hit, but it wasn't online:
Uk.wikipedia: "Сибірська платформа має епіархейський вік. У межах платформи виділяються Алданський щит і Лено-Єнісейська плита, серед"
УКРАЇНСЬКА ГІРНИЧА ЕНЦИКЛОПЕДІЯ ("Сибірська платформа має епіархейський вік. У межах платформи виділяються Алданський щит і Лено-Єнісейська плита, серед"
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a couple of general refs to the article. It's quite a motley collection - one published in 1845, one in 2012, and some Wikipedia compilations (which of course I didn't add). I'm not sure how the latter were compiled - there's no Book:Geology of Russia. Maybe they just collected the articles in Category:Geology of Russia. With two references, Geology of Russia is already better sourced than the Russian and Ukranian articles - their only source translates as Small mining encyclopedia! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We have a few people working on the article now, so it looks like it will be kept. I removed a PROD notice. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reorganising wireline logging

I should have a little more free time in the next few weeks, so I'm going to work on rewriting wireline logging. There's a lot of good information in the related articles and it just needs drawing together in a coherent manner. If anyone has any ideas, they would be much appreciated. Nwhit (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Geology of Cyprus


You will all be glad to hear that I secured Wikipedia the right to use an image of the geologic map of Cyprus. I asked the director of the geologic survey of Cyprus if we could use it and he just wrote back that it is ok. Maybe we could make the geology of Cyprus (A longtime requested article) our next collaboration of the month. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I should be able to help with that if you go ahead - I am kind of busy, but I've worked on the area offshore so I'm up with the literature. I could probably redraw one of the cross-sections from Calon et al. 2005. Mikenorton (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That sounds great. I'm actually still working on an infobox template for this article and other regional geology articles. It is in my Sandbox: link. I've never made an infobox before so I it will still take me some time to figure out how to organize it and how to create the template. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the de facto collaboration for this month is Geology of Russia, so I have changed the front page to reflect that. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge Portland formation with Paleobiota of the Portland formation

Should these two articles be merged?

In my opinion yes. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Geology of the Sierra Madre Occidental

I did some significant work on this article a while ago, but I am unsure if there has been anyone going through to check a lot of what I wrote. One of the sections I added was a section on the geology of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Western Mexico, and I was wondering if anyone from this project could go through and check up on some of what I wrote. I have some knowledge of geology, so I somewhat trust myself, but I fear it might only be enough to be dangerous in misinforming. I believe that all major sources I used are cited in the article, so it would be possible to check through them. Anyone care to help? Al Climbs (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the geology section is long enough to add this article to the project. I'm going to add it to the queue on the assessment page. Be sure to also inform the Geography, Mexico and Mountains projects of the changes. They have given the article mid-importance. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Regional Geology

There is no template for regional geology yet. I tried to make a infobox with a general template for the article "Geology of Russia". Does anyone know how to make a template? It looks complicated and I don't want to mess up the template page. The design should be general enough so it fits all regional geology articles. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Some people don't like this infobox hipe. Geology of the United Kingdom doesn't have space for an infobox. Ecology of the Sierra Nevada and Cerrado have an infobox, as an example. Keep it simple. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't know if this is a good idea. Russia is enormous (Europe and Asia), so many fault systems, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic (Chegem caldera), Kola Peninsula (plutons: Lovozero Massif, Khibiny Massif). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Russia is definitely a worst case scenario for an infobox. I'm just going to archive this idea for now :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It's out of scope, as it isn't regional geology, but it's continental geology ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your great expansion and clean-up of Geology of Russia. Great teamwork, project! Tomcat (7) 10:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thx Tomcat, very kind of you (",) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Following up on the above, the most egregious lack-of-article we have for the timescale is Terrenuevian, as it's actually a period, and it starts the Cambrian. Can someone step up and bang out a stub at least? At the Age level we also need Fortunian (again, starts the Cambrian, so pretty vital); Drumian; Guzhangian; and Jiangshanian. Thanks all. DanHobley (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

NB - it's TerrEnuavian. ::facepalm:: DanHobley (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the spelling is still wrong. TerrenEUvian gives me about 8500 hits on google. TerrenUEvian only 32 (Some of which are wikipedia). I think nueve is spanish and neuve is french. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are of course right. Thanks for catching it. Good job, me. Good job. DanHobley (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Cascade Arc

Sometime last month I created this article from a redirect, partly to avoid WP:UNDUE on the Cascade Volcanoes article. I am just wondering if there is anything else that can improve the article. Volcanoguy 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Purbeck Stone

Purbeck Stone currently redirects to Purbeck Marble. I have very little geological knowledge but I always understood Purbeck Marble to be just one particular type of Purbeck stone. Would it not be more appropriate to have Purbeck Stone redirect to Purbeck Group. I have tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page but there has been none. Ordinarily I would take this as consensus to move but thought I'd better solicit the opinion of an expert first in case I've got it wrong. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia and Purbeck_Stone and Purbeck_Marble are two separate articles dealing with the rocks from Purbeck. You are right the Purbeck marble is just another limestone of the Purbeck area. I actually think that Purbeck marble should redirect to Purbeck stone or maybe "Building stones from Purbeck". I also think that redirecting to Purbeck group would not be a good idea. People trying to find an article about a rock as a material would rather read about architecture than sedimentology. If you need something translated I can help you out. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the Germans are probably right to have two separate articles but they appear to be saying that Purbeck Stone is also called Purbeck Marble and I'm not so sure about that. I will try to take a closer look at it over the weekend and perhaps put something together in my sandbox. Your input will be most welcome though.--Ykraps (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts I think I'd better leave it to you. I appear to have grossly overestimated my level of German.--Ykraps (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
According to this, Purbeck 'marble' consists of two thin beds of limestone containing many fossils of the freshwater gastropod viviparus right at the top of the Purbeck Group. There are a lot of 19th century sources that state explicitly that the 'Purbeck marble' is a variety of 'Purbeck stone', so your understanding was correct and the redirect would better point to 'Purbeck Group' as you originally suggested, although a separate article on the building material would be an even better solution. I think that there should be enough material to have three separate articles, the formally named group, the building stones quarried from that group and the specific variety of building stone. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned up and expanded the Purbeck Marble article and started a stub for Purbeck stone - contributions welcome. Mikenorton (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Mikenorton. That was quick work. I assume you mean Purbeck Stone not Portland?--Ykraps (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I did indeed - thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Geography at peer review

Portal:Geography is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Geography/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What to do with Pre-Ludhamian

Pre-Ludhamian is on our to do list as a requested article. I'm not really sure what to do with it. I put a mention of local stage names in the Pliocene#Subdivisions article. Should the Pre-Ludhamian be a separate article or should it simply link to Pliocene? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


We still need to update articles to the new official timescale Jntg4Games (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out which need articles need updating? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
At least the timescale, each period/era/epoch/age/Phanerozoic. There may have been a change to Cryogenian-Ediacaran boundary too, but just about every Phanerozoic subunit had some form of date change. There is also a new proposal for revision of the Precambrian in the GTS2012 book that should at least be mentioned. Jntg4Games (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I put in a request to update the timescale template to match the change, just over a month ago, but have had no response as yet. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of any other response on this, I've made a start on the timescale template. I am having to make some executive decisions on how this gets rearranged as I go. I've got to the end of the Mesozoic, and will return sometime later this week to finish off. If people could hold off on making more changes til I've got the actual numbers in, that would probably be sensible. However, after that, some outstanding issues will remain:
1. The new scale uses Upper/Middle/Lower in place of Late/Middle/Early. I've made the changes in the template, but these still link through to the time not sectional names.
2. There's a lot - like, A LOT - of uses of these numbers elsewhere (for a start, all the individual stage/class/age etc name pages). I've clearly made no effort to do this yet.
3. Some usages have changed, e.g., Arenig is now Floian. Also some substantial changes in the Cambrian. Usage elsewhere needs changing to reflect this.
4. Most obvious target for updates - List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points.
5. I need to remember to add a ref somewhere to the fact these came from the new timescale.
DanHobley (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The date updates are now Yes check.svg Done on the template. However, all those stage/age/seies/epoch/system/period/etc etc subarticles will also probably be out of date. I can't face this alone. I'd recommend this is probably a good target for a future collaboration? DanHobley (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. We should make it the Collaboration for November. Maybe someone could take the lead on this and make a todo-list of all the articles that need updating. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


Is there a way to template these ages? It should work somehow like this: Somewhere there is a template list with all the ages (e.g. Danian = 66.0). In any Wikipedia article I could then type something like ((template=age.danian)) which would appear as 66.0 in the article. This way we would only have to update one list instead of hundreds of pages. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Great idea, but I lack the WP magic... 02:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHobley (talkcontribs)
Wouldn't we still need to change them all still to insert that template? This would be a good idea though so that we wouldn't need to update them all again in case of another new timescale. Jntg4Games (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried to make the template myself, but I don't have enough template skill to get it to work. I put in a request for help here, and hopefully it will work soon. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The template works now ( --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points

List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points looks pretty good now. The text in the darker table rows is a little hard to read. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's really great work, Tobias. Looks excellent. I'm going to try to do a bit of stuff on the wider articles soon, but I'm snowed under at the moment. DanHobley (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

GTS 2012 to do list

I made a list of stuff that I checked which is too long to post it here: GTS2012. I keep finding more out of date articles and templates :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


There are just a couple of articles left that are missing for the Cambrian: Cambrian Series 2, Cambrian Series 3, Cambrian Stage 3 and Cambrian Stage 4. Another article that needs a lot of work is Trilobite zone. I'm currently getting a lot of help from User:Obsidian Soul who has agreed to do most (actually all) of the paleontology work. Please check out and assess the geology parts of Oryctocephalus indicus, Ptychagnostus atavus and Lejopyge laevigata. I created some stubs at Furongian, Cambrian Stage 10 and Cambrian Stage 5 which all need a second opinion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Image removed

An image, "TectonicReconstructionGlobal2.gif", was removed from the following sites because it was violating copyright rules: Pangaea, Geological history of Earth, History of the Earth, Portal:Earth sciences/DYK/5 and Geologic time scale. It was an animation of the motion of the continents since the Cambrian. I have replaced the image in History of the Earth with a map of geological ages in North America. The others also need a suitable replacement. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the images from which the animation was made are still on Wikipedia (For an example of the copyright see: I think we could ask somebody from the graphics lab to make a similar animation that would fall under the same licence. There is copy of the animation in question: --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Earth220Mya.jpg is used with a fair-use rationale, so I doubt that an animation based on it would be allowed. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thinking about it your probably right that the images are given "as is" and shouldn't be edited. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If we can find a substitute for the animation, I hope it is static by default. I find gif animations irritating because they keep running whether you want them to or not. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, I added a similar image to Portal:Earth sciences/DYK/5 before I noticed the copyright restriction, and it has already been removed. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The images have been restored. Go figure. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And have been removed again! RockMagnetist (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Another bunch of removals:

RockMagnetist (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It is odd that the images were deleted, given that there was permission by Ron Blakey to use them (At least it said so in the description). I think that if the images stay deleted we should ask him for a new set of low resolution images that comply to Wikipedia Commons' rules. Low resolution images are anyway on his website ( and them being on Wikipedia would not hurt his business of selling high resolution images. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we need Requests for Assessment?

As far as I can tell, entries in Requests for assessment fall into a black hole. Does anyone actually look at this list and act on it? If not, it might do more harm than good, since editors might use it instead of this talk page when they want help. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a while I think that a personal message on the talk page will always get a better response than a list. Better to handle request for assessment and peer review on the talk page. At least that will always generate a small response from someone. --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Tobias1984, I think you're most qualified to answer this question, given the number of requests you have added! It might make sense for you to remove this section, so you can add your requests to the talk page if you want. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll put a link to the talk page on the assessment page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Stratigraphy articles

Me again. So after my work on the time scale template, I've been poking around at the articles we have covering formal stratigraphy. My conclusion: they're not so great. The main problem is that there's loads of inconsistency in structure and content, and most of the pages are long and rambling. Almost all (but not actually all, note) Stages an Ages redirect into the larger articles. I would say there's a very strong case for a start to create short, succinct definition articles for all the Stages in the ICS formal 2012 timescale. After this, I'd recommend we work up the hierarchy into Series, Periods, Eras, cleaning and introducing consistency, but this would be a good start. Base content for each would be: 1. position (i.e., containing Series); 2. base and top defined by first appearance datum; 3. 2012 ICS defined chronostratigraphic age; 4. Origin of name. A new template is probably warranted. What do people think? DanHobley (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

yes I've just been nosing around those pages too, several had been vandalised, I think there should be,eon (geology) as a page in its own right at least. I think the rest already exist but they could all do with some work. There might be some sort of wikiproject time template that might work for them? EdwardLane (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Age (geology) is a pitiful stub. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the stages bottom to top. The Cambrian stages and series are all done now and I've reached the first Ordovician stage: Tremadocian. User:ObsidianSoul, who is working on all the index fossils, also has only a few fossils left in the Cambrian. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

2 stratigraphic formation articles needing attention

Falling Creek Formation and Scots Bay Formation were recently created by User:Yewtharaptor. The problem is that they are very short and lack even the most basic information. The first one has no mention of where the formation can be found and the second one doesn't mention the time of deposition. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source to each page and filled in a bit. Mikenorton (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Cape Stewart Formation

Newly created one sentence article needing attention "The Cape Stewart Formation is a geological formation in eastern Greenland."

I've added some basic information and a ref - actually it could be a really good analogue for the sequence that I'm working on right now in my day job, so thanks for pointing it out Tobias. Mikenorton (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Now renamed to Kap Stewart Formation. Mikenorton (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Spruce Pine Mining District

The Spruce Pine Mining District is a pretty important mining operation. The article is very short although the Quartz article mentions it as an important supplier of high-purity quartz. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Spruce Pine Mining District: Crabtree Mine (Emerald Mine), Hawk Mine, Deer Park No. 2 Mine, Aaron Buchanan Mine, Chalk Mountain Mine, Chestnut Flats Mine. Why do you think that it is an important mining operation Tobias? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I was just reading this article (Larsen) that states: "Traditionally, high-purity quartz is recovered from quartz veins and granite pegmatites. Brazil and Madagascar, in particular, were leading producers of vein-type high-purity quartz whereas, today, the Spruce Pine pegmatite district in North America is almost the solitary world supplier". I'm still trying to find if that piece of information from the year 2000 is still valid today. If truee that would mean that this is a mining operation with strategic importance for the electronics industry. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Couple quotes from Elements pegmatite issue: Feldspar was mined in seven states in the U.S. in 2010, with North Carolina's Spruce Pine pegmatite district being the largest producer. and re: high purity quartz: In the U.S., pegmatites in North Carolina and South Dakota are the only significant sources, with North Carolina by far the largest, from Glover et. al. Granitic Pegmatites: Storehouse of Industrial Minerals, Elements, Aug. 2012, v. 8, pp.270-1. Vsmith (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the extra source. I'm going to get that issue from the library and read up :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Patt: Dissertation abstracts or Professional listing?

I would like help with locating the Ph.D. university, advisor, and title of Ralph Oliver Patt's dissertation.

Ralph Patt returned to university (after 20 years!) to earn a Ph.D. in geology in 1975.

He had been employed as a musician in New York City from 1960-1975, so that CUNY or SUNY might have been likely universities.

He was later working at a Western research institute and wrote about Las Vegas's hydrology, in a frequently cited report. As a jazz musician, he probably would have enjoyed proximity to Las Vegas on weekends (or occassional moonlighting).

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Very strange, Google doesn't find something before Nevada from Ralph O. Patt. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not addressing your comment. Patt worked as a professional jazz-guitarist in New York from 1960-1975. He wrote two booklets on guitar chords, one with Chuck Wayne, which are listed in Ralph Patt. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
His B.S. is from the University of Pittsburgh. Professional university-librarian DGG said he'd have a look, and I assume he can find a dissertation. (I think he completed his Ph.D., but who knows?) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
By 1976, he was already authoring reports from the Desert Research Institute, which was associated with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Perhaps either he never completed the Ph.D. or he had already completed it? (He has no Ph.D. thesis in the UN library general catalog.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Quartz-porphyry - cleanup request

Could someone take a look at Quartz-porphyry because it has been tagged for cleanup for over five years. RJFJR (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add it to the projects' to-do list. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I've started by replacing the generic quartz image with one of a sample of the rock type - that sample's been sat on a shelf for the last 35 years since I collected it. Like most articles that are based on 1911 britannica, it's difficult to know where to start on a rewrite - possibly by beginning again from scratch. Mikenorton (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration for December

Any suggestions for the Collaboration of the month for December?

All articles in Category:Meteorites and its sub-categories -Arb. (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I think nobody else has a suggestion. I think you can change the text on the projects main page. It would be nice if you would post a to do list in this thread. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Task list

This list kept for posterity but content now copied to task force page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites#Task_list_.2F_Worklist. -Arb. (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fully thought out list (please add to it if you think of anything) but to get things rolling as it's already the 3rd of the month:

  1. The bot task listed below Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Wikipedia:Bot_requests.23Meteorites.
  2. Create articles for any red links on {{Meteorites}}.
  3. Assess all unassessed articles in the Category:Meteorites category tree.
  4. A bit meta but maybe create a task force page Meteorites similar to those for Cambrian explosion or Geological periods. This would allow in particular one of those colourful tables of articles by status. Also, these articles seem to get overlooked as they fall between geology and astronomy; a task force might raise their profile a bit and help prevent future neglect. Yes check.svg Done.
  5. Raise all stub class articles in the Category:Meteorites tree to start class (see Category:Meteoroid stubs).
  6. Improve the two root articles:
    1. Raise Meteorites from B to A or GA.
    2. Expand Meteoritics and get it to A or GA.

That should be plenty; it's a short month.

-Arb. (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Excellent work on that task list! Actually a task force page does sound like a good idea. Maybe you could also inform the Wikiproject astronomy of this months collaboration. Maybe some people will help us out. I already started with Lodranite because it had a (very short) German article which I translated. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Lodranite looks good. One down, twelve to go of the red links; I'll tackle List of martian meteorites tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Also, I've taken up your excelent idea to invite Wikiproject astronomy participation. -Arb. (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is George Thurland Prior notable enough for the meteorite box? --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Have added him for now. We can reconsider if that section becomes over full. -Arb. (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

List of martian meteorites started. List needs expanding from eleven to ninety nine (see lede). -Arb. (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I added all of them. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a need for a category or list of (all) meteorites by name? -Arb. (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done via the addition of Category:Meteorites by name to {{Infobox meteorite}}. May take a while to be fully populated. -Arb. (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to expedite our bot request that would be a good thing to do. Alternatively, some of the bot tasks could likely be accomplished using AWB, -Arb. (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Winonaite is created. Could somebody go over the text and the sources. I'm not to confident about the content because I couldn't access many of the sources. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that there should be an article about Fe-Ni-metal in meteorites? It is after all a meteorite mineral. Or should all those links be redirected to Native Metal? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The section Native Metal#Iron, nickel and cobalt is quite brief and there exists telluric iron for native iron native to earth rocks in Greenland and such; so ... yes. Go for it :) Vsmith (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Meteoric iron created and I added the meteorite template to Thokcha on a somewhat related note. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for heads up on Thokcha. Good catch there. I've added it to the "In culture" section of the template. -Arb. (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Acapulcoite created. Stub article like the others. I really have to try to look for meteorite thin sections at my university. Articles without pictures are terrible :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Translated Dronino meteorite from German Wikipedia. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion kept for posterity but now continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites. -Arb. (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

New articles

The following articles were dug up by AlexNewArtBot today:

cheers ---Tobias1984 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#Meteorites

I've been working on the category tree of Category:Meteorites for the last few days and have now requested that a bot check that all the articles and categories in the tree are tagged with {{WikiProject Geology}} (amongst other things). Full details at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 51#Meteorites. -Arb. (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The fields |meteorites= and |meteorite-importance= do nothing at present. I have put in an edit request for {{WikiProject Geology}}. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
And within two hours it was implemented. Many thanks RockMagnetist. -Arb. (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Project members may also want to comment on the bot approval here. -- (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Template rockunit

I started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_rockunit about a couple of changes to the rockunit template. I think that the template needs more fields for the type section of a rockunit. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wordsworth and geologists

As far as I can see, this aspect of Wordsworth is entirely missing. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Meteorite journals

Category:Meteorite journals has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Spearfish Formation

Hope everybody is having a few nice days off this season :). I just saw that User:Yewtharaptor created another article. He doesn't answer questions and his edits are often reverted as "wishful thinking" (Thankyou User:J. Spencer for keeping an eye out). Anyway Spearfish Formation (Black Hills, USA) probably needs looking over and assessment. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's looking OK now. Mikenorton (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Great. Thank you! --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks mainly to J.Spencer. Mikenorton (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yewtharaptor is among that category of editors who are either struggling with very little information, or are living in some sort of alternate reality and wish to share it with everyone else. When one adds his/her anonymous edits, via (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and most of (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you get an interminable stream of terrible edits: appropriating the contents of other pages, copy-pastes of chunks of books and articles (not necessarily about the topic at hand), adding fanciful menageries to various Triassic/Jurassic formations, inserting inaccurate information about the provenance and size of various Triassic/Jurassic animals, and, on the Spanish WP, the creation of a half-dozen plus hoax dinosaur articles. There have really been only two helpful consequences of this editor's work: occasionally adding a useful image, and leading editors with expertise to look at some otherwise neglected material in the course of cleaning up. J. Spencer (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the Moon

User:Fotaun started Origin of the Moon. It already looks quite good. I assessed it as C and top priority. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration for January

Hi everyone! It is time again to choose the next collaboration of the month. Last month's collaboration was meteorites/meteoritics. This has led to the formation of a new task force that will continue to work on meteorite related articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites. Over 360 articles were tagged for the task force and most of them got looked over and many were improved. Although not all goals could be met, we accomplished a lot, and I would like to thank all of you who helped out.

Would anybody like to propose an article or a group of articles for January's collaboration of the month? --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When I was working on an article, I went looking for an overview for Geology of Mexico. This is currently a redirect to Geography of Mexico. The closest article seems to be Geology of North America. Sadly, this article has multiple issues unresolved, including lacking most information about non US geology. I think it would be beneficial to have a better set of North American overview articles. Sadly, I won't be of much use right now, but I think that geology of North America would be a good project, sort of in the same vein as when the collaboration was Geology of Russia. --Al Climbs (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it is an excellent suggestion. I will change the project page.--Tobias1984 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As Tobias and Arb "aren't" editing from April until October, we could leave geology of Russia, geology of North America and meteorites as "under construction" and general tidying up during this time ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

First improvements

I don't know if anybody has the page on their watch list, so I'm going to post this here. The article already looks a lot more organized. I moved a lot of the links to the talk page and introduced a small section that outlines what should be discussed in the article. Please take look if you have any time ;). --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


I created a stub article about Wehrlite, does anybody have a picture of a specimen? --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of volcanoes in Luxembourg

According to the tool server there are 16 request for List of volcanoes in Luxembourg. What should we do with these requests. Create an article that says "none ;)"? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of spurious requests. Just ignore them. --Bejnar (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Luxembourg is possibly listed as a country in a template somewhere - which would then I think give a 'request' for that article for each copy of the template. EdwardLane (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Europe topic ({{Europe topic|List of volcanoes in}}). Deleted all templates. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New articles

I looked through the alexbot search results. Couple of new article:--Tobias1984 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is ocean floor a "surface of the Earth"?

I was always sure that it isn't, but a Web page on linked from mantle (geology) claims that it is. Does some standard terminology about terrestrial (or planetary) "surface" exist? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a standard definition. Your example seems to show that on the scale of the mantle, the water covering the oceanic crust is pretty negligible. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree there probably isn't a standard definition. But remember the Earth is also covered in another fluid - air - and we don't count that. I feel the "surface" is the rock surface. DanHobley (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
“Another fluid” accounts for ≈ 104 kg/m2 of matter (10 m water column). A typical abyssal ocean region accounts for ≈ 2.5×106 kg/m2 of matter (2500 m), which only about forty times less than Earth's crust. If we add to our considerations the transparency of these shells to various radiations, then an expert even without any human bias has to conclude that the atmosphere can be neglected. Contrary, the ocean is not transparent to any radiation for which the entire planet is opaque. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Depends most likely on who you ask. To a geologist, yes. To a geographer or oceanographer, likely not. To a politician ... who knows. For the specific usage, consider the Afar region in Africa - no ocean above it. Go east to the Red Sea or Aden rift and yes there is that low density stuff above the solid surface obscuring the view for the geologist :) Vsmith (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New category

I just created category:Earth Sciences databases. However it might be redundant because of the category entitled Geographical databases. I was wondering if project members also think that this category is redundant. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find an example of a database that doesn't feel appropriate under "Geographical", I'd perhaps turn what you have into a redirect for now. You could always restore the page later if some turn up. DanHobley (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't create redirects for categories. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for the idea, but it is probably best not to create this as a redirect. I am inclined to just request speedy delete as the author and as a mistake. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I didn't realize that was policy. DanHobley (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence: Natural History Museum, London

Hi all,

Just to let you know that the Natural History Museum in London is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, working jointly there and at the Science Museum next door; it's a paid post for four months, and applications are open until 10th February. I've worked with Ed Baker at the NHM to define the scope of the program, and it looks really promising - there's some real opportunities for interesting projects here. Details are available on the National Museums site, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Australia: continent or island?

There is a thread at Talk:Continent concerning whether Australia can be specified as the world's largest island. Some input from geologists would be appreciated. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Geography for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Geography for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Geography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

As Arb and Tobias1984 are busy until October, I guess. I suggest to change:
I'm sure my absence will be hardly noticeable. There are a lot of good and diligent Wikipedians out there. At the moment I'm trying to finish up my M.S. thesis. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Humble Tobias ;) Finish ur thesis and upload it, I want to read it ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ring of Fire

The usage of Ring of Fire is under discussion, see talk:Ring of Fire (song) -- (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


There's a request (here) to move stoping to stoping (geology) and put stoping (mining) in its place, on the basis that it is the primary topic. Comments welcome.  —SMALLJIM  22:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Move has taken place.  —SMALLJIM  20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Stratigraphy of the Cambrian

Just tagged Stratigraphy of the Cambrian for the project. It needs a lot of attention. Might not be different enough from the regular Cambrian article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Avalanche page restructuring

Floating a potential re-organization of the avalanche page at the sandbox: User:Avalanche_Sandbox/sandbox. If it is a worthwhile undertaking, any collaboration would be appreciated.Avalanche Sandbox (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Geological phenomena

My feeling is that List of geological phenomena is too broad and ill-defined a concept to merit an article. How do others feel about this? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and on top of that, that article is pretty terrible. I say we just pull the plug. DanHobley (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mauritia (microcontinent)

Is Mauritia (microcontinent) a top importance article to you? The user who rated it has been having problems determining importances outside of Mauritius (various discussions at several wikiprojects about "top" importances being assigned to minor topics by that user), so I thought I'd bring this up. -- (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I see Mikenorton rated it mid-importance - just what I was going to do. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, all. Perhaps this may at least be adjacent to your wheelhouse, but sandfall is nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandfall. Most of the current refs on the article are unreliable sources, the majority being links to youtube videos of sandfalls. It's unclear what information the videos themselves are verifying. Perhaps someone here more interested than I could find reliable sources and make improvements to the article while removing the OR cited to the youtube videos. Or any comments on the AfD would be welcomed. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguate "polarity reversal"

Can someone input as to how to handle disambiguating "polarity reversal"? The Polarity reversal article is for a more esoteric concept, but the more commonly encountered concept is usually (in my experience) called "Geomagnetic reversal". KatieBoundary (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a good solution would be to move Polarity reversal to Polarity reversal (seismology) and put a {{redirect}} template on Geomagnetic reversal. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you move an article? I don't know what Tl redirect means, so this may be what you just said, but I think "Polarity reversal in seismology is so esoteric that whole the current "polarity reversal" article should have that as its name, and "polarity reversal" should redirect to "geomagnetic reversal", then put a a hat at the top of the Geomagnetic reversal article that says "if you are looking for polarity reversal in seismology, then see "polarity reversal (seismology)". KatieBoundary (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Polarity reversal is a little-visited page, so I decided to be bold and do the changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be an article instead of being redirects to supercontinent ? -- (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well it's true to say that a pal(a)eocontinent is no more or less likely to be a supercontinent than any modern day continent - plenty of pal(a)eocontinents around in the past (inevitably) that were not supercontinents. Thinking about it, we don't have any supercontinents around nowadays since we're in that part of the cycle so perhaps what I say is not strictly true! Anyway there is a partial listing of 'historic continents' at Template:Continents of the world of course which could feed in to such an article. Geopersona (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right both that we should have an article and that the current redirects aren't that logical (although I'm not sure what target I would use). I may regret this, but I'll make a start today and see where it gets me - stub started. Mikenorton (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Geology of Africa - time for a collaborative effort?

There appeared a main article in the UK science publication New Scientist this week around the subject of 'Where next for Wikipedia?'. One issue which was raised was the dearth of articles on African topics. Keen as many of us are to broaden the range of topics which WP attends to, broadening its coverage beyond the typical Americo- and Euro-centric, I looked to see how many articles on the 'Geology of (insert name of African country here)' there were; the answer is 'almost none'. User Mikenorton's suggestion, which I'm taking up here, is to ask whether a 'collaboration of the month' on the part of WP Geology editors might make a difference here? Any thoughts? cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, might be worth going through all countries of the world that don't have a geology of article in area size order or something, so that the bulk of the world is covered quickly. I presume that most of the unmentioned countries are currently in africa? Or we could focus on 'just in africa' if that makes more sense. Might want cautious wording for areas of disputed territories - whether to include a particular area in the geology of china for instance EdwardLane (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks EdwardLane - whether just in Africa or if venturing further afield, there will still be plenty of relatively 'quick wins' before we need mire ourselves in any disputed territory issues. Of course some disputes revolve around access to mineral/hydrocarbon resources so a well-researched geological article would be highly relevant! cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Drift Plain ?

Although we have an article on Till. I am having difficulty finding an article or section of an article on "drift" to link to, to give further information on what a "drift plain" is, as opposed to a till plain. Any suggestions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Bar (river morphology) a drift plain? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. But it's not really large enough to explain a plain. Perhaps I am looking for a wider treatment than Lacustrine plain and Alluvial plain but I would really like to point to a more detailed discussion of "drift." Any knowledgeable takers to create something somewhere on the Pedia? :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper move?

Why was Geology of the United States moved to User:Al Climbs/Geology of the United States? It also leaves behind a cross-namespace redirect. Chris857 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed soon. There was a problem with the move. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that discussion about fixing these moves should continue at User talk:Al Climbs#Move. I can move the articles back, if we can figure out which ones they were. There appears to be some uncertainty as to what material was in Geology of the United States versus Geology of North America before all the moves started. Cut-and-pasting of material can disturb the edit history so further work may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Geology of North America lost its original talk page with the move. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we can just plant a message about that on the new talk page. Is there something important to retrieve from the editorial history? --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata: Stratigraphy task force

As the central storage of infobox information on Wikidata will roll out sometime next week, I created d:Wikidata:Stratigraphy_task_force task force page that will organize gathering of information from Template:Infobox rockunit. Would be nice if some people from this project would like to participate. Most of the work will be done by bots. It is mostly just discussing how to store the information in a way that is organized, easily retrievable and properly sourced. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I proposed a few properties here. Would be nice if some of you could give some helpful comments. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Some progress was made the past few days. Wikidata can now save the hex-color of each subdivision of the geologic time scale: E.g.: Fortunian. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming of individual cratons etc

There was brief discussion two or three years ago, archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Archive_2#Capitalizations_for_shields_and_cratons, concerning the capitalisation of 'craton' and shield' in article titles (and indeed other use of the terms within articles) which dealt with specific examples. I had thought to alter the names of several articles from 'Name craton' to 'Name Craton' to reflect the fact that each of these is a proper noun, referring to a specific geographical entity. A similar argument applies to shields and indeed I'd suggest to orogens. Then there are terranes and orogenies too - unsurprisingly perhaps, Wikipedia currently displays some inconsistency in these matters, as a quick survey demonstrates. Interestingly however structural basins seem to be uniformly capitalised and coalfields are almost universally treated so. The earlier discussion seemed inconclusive - certainly the inconsistencies remain. My preference would be to introduce caps but would anyone else care to comment? cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A specific named feature should be capitalized such as the Baltic Shield. Looking at Shield (geology) I see most of the listed examples are, but there is inconsistency just as Andy pointed out re a scholar search. On list of shields and cratons there is glaring inconsistency. Shields cap'd, cratons not cap'd. We need to be consistent and I'd recommend renaming all those X craton articles to X Craton. Same for orogenies - the list of orogenies show most uncap'd, but with inconsistencies. If they are named features/events then cap 'em. Vsmith (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Another thing I should bring up are the names of greenstone belts. From looking at the list of greenstone belts they are mostly uncapitalized as well. Volcanoguy 21:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
So thus far we've coalfields, cratons, greenstone belts, orogens, orogenies, shields, structural basins and terranes. There are specfic named blocks, horsts, grabens, folds, faults, fault zones, platforms, shear zones etc etc which would be encompassed by the same considerations - certainly I see some inconsistencies between and within articles. For the benefit of future editors, a note in these pages might be worth considering in the hope of securing greater consistency. At the same time a note regarding the preferred capitalisation of age/stage, epoch/series, period/system, era and eon and indeed the convention relating to the naming of lithostratigraphical units (ie caps for specific, formal names of formations, groups and supergroups) might also help secure such consistency. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Template color changes

Currently an IP editor (Special:Contributions/ wants to change the color of all the time scale templates to USGS colors. I think we should have a consensus about this before we do this. I personally think that the ICS colors are far more common (Permian is almost everywhere red, for example). --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Tobias, the ICS timescale colours are more common, and in my personal opinion, nicer. I note the GSA also uses the ICS colour scheme.

For reference:

* USGS colours:
* ICS colours:
Regrettably, our IP fellow editor appears to have been working backwards, and has already made a bunch of changes to the colours on the daughter pages. But there you go. We can always put them back.
It's probably in fact worth reemphasising here that the vast majority of our formal date coverage is based on the ICS... I think? Back me up here somebody. Something that would be worthwhile would be establishing consensus on this while we're at it. Template:Geologic_time_scale is at least set up this way, using ICS 2013, as Tobias and myself did it a few months back. We're going to have to keep a reasonably careful watch over these pages if we don't want some of the dates to wander to other schemes. (I think this might have already happened in a couple of places...) DanHobley (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The 1st Geologic timescale dates back to January 2008 using the USGS Colors when it was moved from the table. USGS Colors had been used on the table since April 22 2005 before midnight. ICS colors was not used until 2009 when the geological history was almost 1 years old and remained on that template for 4 years. Those templates were the 1st 2 templates and it took 2-4 years before more geologic templates came. So they're like the parent templates using USGS Colors. These templates colors should define what colors the daughter templates color it uses. The geologic timescales on are all 1 family and they should use 1 set of colors for all. Other Geologic timescale families that are outside of may use other color sets or USGS colors if they want to. (talk) 23:08 11 March 2013 (UTC) 7:08pm 3/11/2013 EDT
Sorry, but this isn't USGS.wikipedia but Stop you! --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Any Wikipedia has the challenge that languages usually transcends national boundaries. I think this observation alone should compel us to use terms and definitions used by international organizations. The USGS is one of the best surveys in the world and their scientific work spans the whole globe, but I think even they use the ICS colors outside of the U.S. where mapping tradition probably has established a different set of colors. Maybe somebody has some information of why these colors where chosen, so can have reason before simple preference. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Using the ICS colors would result in a bad reason. It would make the text and links unreadable as said in the Template Geologic time scale talk page . It was the user Perhelion that had the information the USGS Colors was chosen. Plus User:[|Casito] had placed USGS colors on that Geologic timecale table. OK back to the 1st bad reason. That real reason the text would be unreadable is that ICS colors contain lots of Blue and Dark colors. Meaning that it would need a lot of text turned white meaning that we need to write the text color change code. That would take more memory. Like the template geological history with ICS Colors would need 479 more bytes then USGS. Plus Permian template needs 94 more bytes. If I did not changed the templates I changed would need 4639 more bytes or 4.639 kilobytes. If all templates are changed to USGS colors we can reduce the memory usage by 5-20 kilobytes. (talk) 20:55 12 March 2013 (UTC) 4:55pm 3/12/2013 EDT
Really? We're talking about bytes on a web page? Even a moderate router speed of 50 megabits per second is equivalent to a transfer of 6250 kilobytes per second. 4.6 kilobytes is about 0.7 milliseconds of transfer time. — Parsa talk 02:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I found out that the total amount of more memory ICS colors needs is 11,396 bytes 11.4 kilobytes and 0.0114 megabytes in the Metric system. (talk) 13:30 18 April 2013 (UTC) 9:30am 4/18/2013 EDT


I think we should vote on this soon. (feel free to add your points to the table):--Tobias1984 (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Which colors should the templates use?
ICS colors USGS colors
Very dark and Blue colors. Some text and links are hard to read or need to be white. Lighter colors.
Used in the international time scale (A lot of people are familiar with these colors) The USGS colors use less memory. 11,396 bytes less.
- Use on Wikipedia since September 13 2008 link is [| Here] Have been used longer on Wikipedia since April 23 2005 link is [| here]
e.g. List of GSSPs e.g. Geologic time scale
Vote ICS Vote USGS
--Tobias1984 (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC); --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC); --Awickert (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC); --Mikenorton (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC); — Parsa talk 01:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC); --DanHobley (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC); -- Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)); -- (talk) 19:12 15 April 2013 (UTC) 3:12pm 4/15/2013 EDT -- Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP-editor is still trying to force the color change, and he/she/they refer/s to his/her/their edits as "winning" (whatever that means in an encyclopedia). I think it is time for an administrator to step in and block this lunatic until we have a proper consensus. I think at least 10 people involved in the project should vote. Please add your name in the relevant table column.--Tobias1984 (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am no longer changing the colors to USGS. All it took was Alnagov (talk) switching the mother template Template:Geologic time scale to ICS. Then I went on changing the father template Template:Geological history and all of the daughter templates. (talk) 01:07 31 March 2013 (UTC) 9:07pm 3/30/2013 EDT
  • This change applies to ALL Geologic timescale templates. You would have to convert RGB to Hex codes. If ICS Wins notify the user who said ICS can't be here on Template:Geologic Time scale that we change to ICS. (talk) 12:42 18 March 2013 (UTC) 8:42am 3/18/2013 EDT.
Could you please try and explain why these things that you keep posting here and on my wall even matter? Since when is memory an issue on Wikipedia? What is the difference between RGB and Hex if they show the same color? What is so bad about the color template? Why do you think that your such a big expert on Wikipedia? You haven't even registered and forced your opinion on all the templates that you know how to edit (The reason why the graphical timelines are still intact), and your reluctance to handle this like a serious discussion and trying to win edit wars against multiple people hasn't made you a lot of friends the past couple of days. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has way way way lot more memory then the several next large Wikipedias. My guess is that we have 12.1 GB of text and the several next largest Wikipedias average to be 5.4 GB of text. From English Wikipedia that said on Jan 2012 we have totaled 9.7 GB of text. GB = Gigabytes. (talk) 13:50 16 April 2013 (UTC) 9:50am 4/15/2013 EDT.
  • Voted on the ICS side because it is the international standard and English is an international language. Awickert (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Awickert (talk) If ICS win then you will have to change Template:Geologic time scale to ICS color set. Tell Perhelion (talk) that ICS won and that Template:Geologic time scale has to change. (talk) 23:59 21 March 2013 (UTC) 7:59am 3/21/2013 EDT., I have executed your condition, the change Template:Geologic time scale to ICS color. Stop your editing of the periods time scales from ICS to USGS Colors! Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC))
I am no longer changing the colors to USGS. All it took was you switching the Template:Geologic time scale to ICS. Then I went on changing the father template Template:Geological history and all of the daughter templates. (talk) 01:15 31 March 2013 (UTC) 9:15pm 3/30/2013 EDT
  • The ICS is the current international standard. I support changing all templates and tables to ICS colors. The Project may decide to make some more muted versions of the colors rather than the recommended saturated hex colors, but these basic ICS colors should be used. The issue is not just the colors. The USGS system was not current as far as dates, eras, or periods (circa 1991 at latest), and as of 2010 they have adopted the dates and most of the names from the ICS. USGS maps still include the Tertiary, and make no reference to the Neogene or Paleogene for example. As the Tertiary article states, the term is "officially deprecated." The GSSPs used for dating are all from ICS stratigraphy. The internationally agreed upon Stages are all from the ICS timescale. All of the popular websites about geologic time also use the ICS colors. I really don't see that this is even an issue that needs to be discussed at length. — Parsa talk 01:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The color code is easy to use {period color|name} . Make sure all ICS Colors use this template. If ICS make new Geologic timescale set and changes colors this code will change. I still do let you use Hex code for color but it needs to be updated. And I do not let you use RGB code rgb(RED,GREEN,BLUE) 16 bytes vs #HEXCODE 7 bytes. (talk) 00:145 23 March 2013 (UTC) 8:15pm 3/22/2013 EDT.
First of all you have no more say in this than an other contributor of Wikipedia. Plus your general reluctance to engage in constructive conversation is probably reducing the chances that anybody will care what you have to say. Personally I think that if you want hexcodes you better start working on that list. And I also personally don't care what you allow or don't allow people to use. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No thanks, I've completely changed my mind. I've decided that a list of #hexcodes would take forever (also when updating), because Template:Period color and Template:Period color/sandbox didn't provide #hexcodes just the RGB code. I hope in a future update of the colors in Template:Period color/sandbox someone is gonna add the #hexcodes in. I'm just gonna make sure that all ICS color schemes is the same on all sets I find on English Wikipedia. (talk) 14:00 16 April 2013 (UTC) 10:00am 4/16/2013 EDT.

  • The IP editor ( is still interfering at Template:Permian. Apparently his mission is now to block the color templates because they have RGB-colors instead of HEX-colors. I still don't get what the fuss is, if 16 or 7 bytes are moved around? --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope I am not or even daring to do it. Right now the problem is that Template:Period color and Template:Period color/sandbox does not provide #hexcodes. (talk) 1:10 17 April 2013 (UTC) 9:10pm 4/16/2013 EDT.
  • There is something rather odd going on here. There appears to be more than one person using this IP, and they have been engaged in an edit war at Template:Geologic time scale, even leaving a warning banner on their shared talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course most IP Addresses are just assigned to a internet connention. Some internet connections are used by more then 1 person. Oh you're getting us of topic. (talk) 01:15 31 March 2013 (UTC) 9:15pm 3/30/2013 EDT.
  • Commentary: If we want to use pastel colors than we need to use HEX codes, I think. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • en.wikipedia is not USA national resurce. It is international and unites English language World (UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA and peoples from other countryes). Therefore it is incorrect to use the USGS colors in priority above the ICS. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC))
  • This section can't be archived. There is not even 10 users voting. We have only 8 users voting so far. This section might have to stay for 1 year. (talk) 21:02 30 April 2013 (UTC) 5:02pm 4/30/2013 EDT.
Now that there's 9 voters so far. We're almost toward the agreement. You can decide which ICS color scheme to use below "Template: Period color. New debates" section below. For bright neon ICS Colors you can see here ( RGB codes can be obtained by color picking on Windows 7. (talk) 00:55 17 May 2013 (UTC) 8:55pm 5/16/2013 EDT.
  • I'll come in rather late to emphasise readability. On a screen, readability is paramount, whereas on a classroom chart maybe eye-catching is more important. We should consider to what extent the colours make it difficult to read the contents. If they are too vivid (eg bright fuschia, which is rather distracting) or too dark (eg deeper brown, which obviously lessens the contrast of the words against the colour) then readability is affected. On those grounds I tend to prefer the USGS system of colours. Whatever we decide, we might consider adjusting the settings to make the colours less vivid, and lighter in tone. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


I don't get it, why does Wikipedias like zh.wikipedia use the United States Geological Survey colors when it's nowhere abut United States stuff? Why did they adapt USGS Colors in the 1st place? Take a look | Geologic time scale zh chinese (talk) 00:40 14 April 2013 (UTC) 8:40pm 4/13/2013 EDT.

Most likely, Chinese author copied the original schemes from the and not thinking about colors. Do you think all is well versed in the stratigraphy and in its color representation? It is a problem of Chineses, not ours. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

Template:Period color

Is this part of internationalizing USGS colors? Stop it, please.- --PePeEfe (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No we are not expanding the use of USGS Colors. Right now I think that there is more wikipedias using USGS Colors you can check. (talk) 19:24 16 April 2013 (UTC) 3:24pm 4/15/2013 EDT.
In the Wikipedia in spanish we use the ICS & CGMW standard color codes, RGB version. To my knowledge not has been changed in the latest version of the table.
The RGB version we use is for computer screens presentations (main media for Wikipedia). You can find it at Standard Color Codes for the Geological Time Scale (RGB).
For the 2013 edition, I think they just used softer colors from the CMYK version, as standar for print.
If you know and have formal references for a new ICS RGB codes please write me. Best regards, --PePeEfe (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That was exactly the rgb codes i was trying to add to the template. I noted that by the color scheme of the Devonian. (talk) 19:20 14 April 2013 (UTC) 3:20pm 4/13/2013 EDT.
I answer on your talk page. --PePeEfe (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Probably related to the above: please see Template talk:Period color#Order Mixed Up. User (talk) is trying to push through a change without first demonstrating consensus. They are now verging on personal abuse, and I am unwilling to decide which colours are "right" or "wrong". --Redrose64 (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Template: Period color. New debates

Once again difficulties arose in the correcting colors in the Template talk:Period color.

As you all know, the Frasnian darker in contrast with lighter color of the Famennian. You can see it in the web-site International Commission on Stratigraphy -

At presently in "Template:Period color" the colour of the Famennian Stage is assigned to the Frasnian Stage, colour of the Frasnian is assigned to the Famennian. User correctly noticed this error in code of the template, but he dimly formulated its essence (see Template talk:Period color#Order Mixed Up) and it was refused in editing by Redrose64 (talk)

First question. Mistake in color Frasnian and Famennian

1.1 Interchange colors

At presently in "Template:Period color": famennian=rgb(244,234,185) - darker, frasnian=rgb(243,235,204) - lighter.

Must be: famennian=rgb(243,235,204), frasnian=rgb(244,234,185)

1.2 Just reverse the period color name.

| style="background:{{Period color|frasnian}}" |Famennian
| style="background:{{Period color|famennian}}" |Frasnian

Vote! (and comment)

It's funny, but your votes are needed to correct this mistake.

Interchange colors Reverse when using the colors
Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)); - Mikenorton (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Second question. Color source for Template:Period color

Unfortunately a original source for colors, that use in Template:Period color, lost. Maybe we should choose a new reliable source.

Vote! (and comment)

Please vote! Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC))

1. Colors from the web-site of the Dr. Gabi Ogg 2. Colors from the web-site of the International Commission on Stratigraphy
Source: Source:
Code: User:Alnagov/sandbox#Dr. Gabi Ogg colors Code: User:Alnagov/sandbox#ICS colors
Votes: (talk) 01:05 2 May 2013 (UTC) 9:05pm 5/01/2013 EDT. Votes: Tobias1984 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


I am inclined to variant 2. Colors from Dr. Gabi Ogg site are very dark and saturated... But I refrain from selecting from among the variants of the conversion CMYK colors into RGB color, all its conversions are correctly. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC))

I think number 2 looks good. Lighter colors were a concern before. Maybe we could also make the switch to hex-triplet colors, which was also a request a while ago. At the same time we could also synchronize the colors with Wikidata (See: Fortunian). At some point it might be more practical to update the template from Wikidata, or even get the colors for the timelines and infoboxes directly from there. That would ensure that all languages of Wikipedia are using the same colors. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I prefer choice number 1, looks the best. In fact there is more ICS sets using the same exact codes from Gabi Ogg color codes, one of them is here [2] . (talk) 01:05 2 May 2013 (UTC) 9:05pm 5/01/2013 EDT.
User "Your source is not a rgb code for colors page". I have corrected this mistake (for ICS colors from [3]). "I prefer choice number 1, looks the best. In fact there is more ICS sets using the same exact codes from Gabi Ogg color codes, one of them is here[1]." Your link to example of use of the colours Dr. Gabi Ogg is link to the Gabi Ogg web-site. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC))
Hmm not sure I have much to add to this but a couple of requests:
  1. Please take your time when writing any comments relating to colour codes, it is very easy to accidentally type something that can be interpreted harshly.
  2. I'd generally like wikipedia to use international standard notation if we can use it.
  3. If you want opinions from outside the current group of involved parties then please flesh out the possible options slightly more so that we can more easily understand the particular intricate issue that is being deliberated.
  4. Finally it seems like there are a bunch of threads on this page at the moment that are all about colour templates,I wonder if someone should start a level 3 header, and then move (nest) all the colour related threads as level 4 headers below that (they seem to be fairly spirited/fierce discussions and I'd like to just skip past them easily so I can remain in a nice calm environment).
EdwardLane (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
See this is why Template:Period color is fully protected rather then semi protected. Look at the voting booth I and Tobias1984 do not agree to use same colors. It will cause edit wars about which color sets to use. (talk) 23:56 27 May 2013 (UTC) 7:56pm 5/27/2013 EDT.

Mining geology

New article. Needs a lot of attention: Mining geology. --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the dictionary copyvio with a bit off the top o' me head... need to find a ref to back it up - later. Please modify as needed. Cheers - Vsmith (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible deletion?

Hi all. I'm currently looking at Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure and trying to work out if it's notable. This is a long way from my personal area of expertise and so I was wondering if you could help me out. What makes a geological item notable? WormTT(talk) 13:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability is nominally the same for everything on Wikipedia - references from reliable sources, but geology articles may have a shortage of citations from secondary sources, so it can tricky. But if for example something is even briefly mentioned in the news, or any of the publications on List_of_important_publications_in_geology, then that seems likely to be notable.EdwardLane (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Geology of the United States

is one of the worst compilations of random info and misinformation on Wikipedia. The continent is built starting with an e to w trending Cordillera, then moves on to a surficial shield about the Great Lakes, Hawaii was in Cordillera, although who knows where, and the article makes no sense. The article should be userfied, not left to be mirrored all over the web with incomprehensible misinformation. If it cannot be rewritten, it should immediately, it should not be left to appear in google searches.

It is good to have accurate colors, but if the articles are so bad they should not be on Wikipedia, where do you plan to use the color scheme?

- (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Geology of North America seems in much better shape but still very small considering the user base - the geol of us is supposedly a subsection of that information, but I agree it is in bad shape. Changing geology of the us into a redirect (to geol of north america) might do the job. If Geology of north america gets a massive expansion and becomes too big to read comfortably then splitting the geol of the US into its own article again would make more sense to me EdwardLane (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I'm currently working on a complete rewrite of the article, based on USGS PD sources. —hike395 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reversed the approval of DYK nomination because of issues with either editors or articles. Either IP is disrupting the article, or info may not be accurate. Either way, I need more participants to help out. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, since geology does not follow national boundaries, I think that this should be a redirect to Geology of North America. --Bejnar (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
As Hike395 has started work on a complete re-write in userspace, I'd say wait a bit. An article about geology of a political entity is a perfectly viable topic -- seems we have several now. Vsmith (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Viable often, appropriate not so much. I love the way lakes and mountain ranges change names across borders. I still remember in the 1970s when the New Mexico Bureau of Mines (now Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources) hired a company to survey the northern third of the Texas-New Mexico border since the geologic maps of Texas and New Mexico were at such odds along the border. --Bejnar (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Should Calcids be merged into Petrocalcic Horizon? The calcids article is awful to read and I haven't found any references to "calcids" in google scholar. Petrocalcic horizon seems to cover the topic pretty well. In fact, perhaps it should be proposed for deletion. I know nothing about Geology, so the ball's on your side of the court. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

J.D.A. Piper

I noticed something. It seems there's been a recent addition to the articles Supercontinent, Supercontinent cycle, and Rodinia by "Dr John D A Piper", citing his own papers for his "Palaeopangaea" supercontinent model. The concern I had here was for neutrality -- in at least the first article, Supercontinent, it says:

The second model (Protopangea-Paleopangea) is based on both palaeomagnetic and geological evidence and proposes that the continental crust comprised a single supercontinent from ~2.7 Ga until break-up during the Edicaran Period after ~0.6 Ga. The reconstruction[6] is derived from the observation that palaeomagnetic poles converge to quasi-static positions for long intervals between ~2.7-2.2, 1.5-1.25 and 0.75-0.6 Ga with only small peripheral modifications to the reconstruction.[7] During the intervening periods, the poles conform to a unified apparent polar wander path. Because this model shows that exceptional demands on the paleomagnetic data are satisfied by prolonged quasi-integrity, it must be regarded as superseding the first model proposing multiple diverse continents, although the first phase (Protopangea) essentially incorporates Vaalbara and Kenorland of the first model.

so it seems he's claiming that this is the right model (not surprising, considering he's the model's maker). But: is this the consensus of the broader geological community, or just his opinion? While it may be that his models deserve a mention, WP still needs to maintain neutrality. Is there a neutrality problem here or not? Can some expert in Geology (other than Piper and not affiliated with him in some way) comment on this issue? Thanks. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Please have a look at this submission. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD: List of geological phenomena

I just flagged List of geological phenomena for deletion. This came up on these pages about 6 months ago, and no-one defended it. Grounds are incomplete list, nearly orphan page, heavily neglected, but mainly just that this isn't WP:NOTABLE. Please go there and improve the article if you don't want it to die... DanHobley (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)#

I don't really see the point of such a list. Everything can be covered in the entry Geology. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


There is a discussion at Talk:Stalactite#Limestone bias, regarding the coverage of the article - please feel free to contribute. Mikenorton (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

New 'embryonic' subduction zone found, Monash University

  • A new subduction zone forming off the coast of Portugal, new research led by Monash University (Melbourne) geologists. [4] [5]
  • Ref: João C. Duarte, Filipe M. Rosas, Pedro Terrinha, Wouter P. Schellart, David Boutelier, Marc-André Gutscher and António Ribeiro (2013) Are subduction zones invading the Atlantic? Evidence from the southwest Iberia margin. Geology 41(7); DOI: 10.1130/G34100.1 [6]
There is a data repository for #2013235: Geology , 2013. J.C. Duarte et al. Total file (PDF) size: 26.15 MB. I needed more than 30 min.[7] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you can add some text into Geology of the Iberian Peninsula#Atlantic opening if you can find a good spot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
might be a few other spots too, perhaps a subsection near Plate_tectonics#Formation_and_break-up_of_continents EdwardLane (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
and perhaps the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, but maybe it would be worth waiting a bit to see how widely this becomes accepted. Mikenorton (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
As a consequence, East coast of USA is a potential spot too (earthquake activity in the New York City area). This is old, Gibraltar area was suspected to be an 'embryonic' subduction zone for quite some time. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The news blurb rather typically hypes it with "..will see the Atlantic Ocean close ..". The article provides interesting details on the interactions of the African and European plates, the Gibraltar arc and Azores-Gibraltar fault zone (AGFZ). However the leap from the details of the region combined with Scotia Ridge and Lesser Antilles subduction areas to hypothesize that the Atlantic is closing ... maybe premature. As Mikenorton says wait and see the reaction to the paper. And definitely too early to attempt a New York earthquake correlation. Vsmith (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that there's any disagreement that the area is undergoing overall transpression, but whether it is really an embryonic subduction zone is likely to be more contentious. As to the source of the 1755 earthquakes, the appendices of this report show how little agreement there is. Mikenorton (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Po plain "subduction" is a greater wonder ;)
  • M.-A. Gutscher, S. Dominguez, G.K. Westbrook, P. Le Roy, F. Rosas, J.C. Duarte, P. Terrinha, J.M. Miranda, D. Graindorge, A. Gailler, V. Sallares, R. Bartolome (2012) The Gibraltar subduction: A decade of new geophysical data Tectonophysics volumes 574–575, pages 72–91 DOI: 10.1016/j.tecto.2012.08.038 [8]
  • @Mikenorton: there are some maps (thumb size), the Atlantic ocean sea floor (between Azores-Gibraltar fault zone (AGFZ) and equator, mainly) is old enough for a subduction.
  • E. Carminati, C. Doglioni and D. Scrocca (2005) Magnitude and causes of long-term subsidence of the Po Plain and Venetian region in Flooding and Environmental Challenges for Venice and its Lagoon: State of Knowledge, ed. C. A. Fletcher and T. Spencer with J. Da Mosto and P. Campostrini, published by Cambridge University Press pages 21-28 [9]
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


image:Cluster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. The 2007 version of the file is a selenite crystal. -- (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

media was split to File:USFWS selenite.jpg and File:Galaxy cluster Abell 2218 gravitaitonal lens.jpg -- (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wenlock Group

Wenlock Group needs some sources and rewording. The term is apparently no longer used (link). Wenlockian currently redirects there, but should really be an independent entry. Anybody with experience with that strata up for it? --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No experience as such (apart from visiting some of the classic sections in Shropshire a few decades ago). I note that the BGS use only the term "Wenlock rocks" for all stratigraphic units from the Wenlock series, which I guess just means "rocks of Wenlock age". The sequence of that age in Cumbria is the Tranearth Group, part of the Windermere Supergroup. In the Welsh borders, the lowermost part is the Woolhope Limestone Formation, followed by the Coalbrookdale Formation and then the Much Wenlock Limestone Formation, but no "parent group" has been assigned to these strata. In the Southern Uplands, we have the Ross Formation and Raeberry Castle Formation, although these are split between two different groups, the Hawick Group and the Riccarton Group. In short there is no one replacement for the ancient term "Wenlock Group" - I think that it was out of date in 1911, most usage is from the the 19th century [10]. Perhaps we could turn it into an article on the Wenlock epoch, which currently redirects to a short section in the Silurian article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I created a entry for Wenlock (Silurian) now. I was thinking we could rewrite Wenlock Group in a way that explains that it was a historically important term and explain what the current subdivision is. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Good idea Tobias. DanHobley (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I also redirected the incoming links to Wenlock (Silurian) in the templates. (talk) 02:11 02 August 2013 (UTC) 10:11pm 8/01/2013 EDT.

Grand Canyon geological mapping

New copy/paste article Grand Canyon geological mapping with problems. Vsmith (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have placed a deletion proposal on this article, per the discussion at that talk page (see below also). If someone could second me, using the template {{Prod2}}, I would be much obliged. DanHobley (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Durdle Door

An image of Durdle Door is due to appear on the Main Page as Picture of the Day on August 12th. The geology section of the article could perhaps do with a bit of attention, if anyone feels inclined to cast a quick glance over it. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at it. It should now be better. DanHobley (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dan, it is much improved - previously it looked as if someone had exploded a bag of 'citation needed' templates over it. There's an ambiguous sentence which I think still needs clarifying; it currently reads "the area around Durdle Door seems unusually shallow, so thinner bands of sediments were deposited", but this rather strangely uses the present tense ("seems") and doesn't state what was shallow (a prehistoric sea presumably?). I would just alter it myself but I'm not sure which period it's referring to. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes. I changed the wording so that the sense was clear... but the fact remains I have no idea what the source is for this! It's probably in somebody's undergraduate field guide from ten years ago... DanHobley (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody still look at this: Talk:Durdle_Door#Wealden_Clay --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
On it. PCW's approach is good, and they are right that it probably is the Supergroup. DanHobley (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grand Canyon geological mapping

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Grand Canyon geological mapping has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fork of content already at Geology of the Grand Canyon. Content apparently uncritically copy-pasted from several public domain USGS webpages.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DanHobley (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good decision. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to update anyone following this along, the original author of this page has been convinced there were some major issues with it, and kindly agreed to a speedy delete. I grabbed a copy for my sandbox, in case we can make use of parts of the material. I'll take a look sometime, though others also welcome to make changes to/reuse it too, of course. DanHobley (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyclostratigraphy, clarification

On the page, it states, "[...]41-kyr, and 1,2-Myr, and[...]".
This 1,2-Myr, is it 1 and 2, 1 or 2, or 1-2 Myrs? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's 1.2-Myr, which is the amplitude modulation for the precession index (according to the reference that I've now added). Mikenorton (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone clearly had an MOS fail! These should also be written without the hyphen, i.e., 1.2 Ma or Myr. DanHobley (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I removed the hyphens (this is the only page I've seen use hyphen out of all other pages that I have visited). Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Laschamp event - period?

I'm guessing the 41.000 years ago is 41,000 years ago. I'm aware that Europeans (I think) use a period for a comma and a comma for a decimal? Or am I wrong? I changed it to a comma. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think some do, but WP definitely doesn't! You can read up on the official style policies at MOS:NUMBERS#Numbers. Basically, if it looks weird, it's probably wrong. I'd recommend just changing any you find after you've read that section of the Manual of Style. WP always needs more eyes on the ground to resolve bad formatting! DanHobley (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

1935 article

Hello. I was trying to find out some information about the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America so that I might be able to write a short article about it. While searching for relevant information I came across this:

"An instrumental earthquake magnitude scale". (Free PDF download) Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. January 1935. vol. 25 no. 1. 1-32.

Well, I just noticed that this is also available via Google Scholar so it may not be that big of a find. Anyway, in case it is of historical interest or otherwise to this project, I provided the link to a full text copy. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it to the Richter magnitude scale and Charles Richter articles. Mikenorton (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Geology - Skysmith (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Geologist help -- Vishnu Complex

I'd like to add some formation articles, and I thought I would start at the bottom of the column with Vishnu Complex, but it seems it might be called also the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite, although the Vishnu Schist might also just be part of this. I only have on-line access, limited, to references right now. Can someone give me a reference and solid information about the suite of articles that would discuss what I call the Vishnu Complex of the Vishnu Schist and the Zoroaster and related granites?

Help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

The USGS still refer to it as the Vishnu Schist [11] rather than either of the other names. However, Ilg and others (1996) named the whole complex the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite, consisting as it says of three mappable units, the Rama, Brahma and Vishnu Schists. See also Karlstrom et al. (2012). From what I can tell, the term "Vishnu Complex" is less used and comes from terminology in a paper in 1979, Brown et al., that doesn't seem to have been generally taken up. I hope that helps a bit. Mikenorton (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The whole thing is so confusing. I can't find that the Granite Gorge Metamorphic Suite is used for the specific unit I am trying to discuss, not just the Vishnu Schist, but the metamorphic basement suite composed of the schist and the various, now metamorphosed, granitic plutons. From reading what I can about the Granite Gorge Metemorphic Suite, it seems to apply to the schists, but I can't see mention of the granitic intrustions. Is your understanding that it is the schists and the gneisses, complete, that form the Grand Canyon basement rocks below the Great Unconformity? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)) (And may God help those less vested in geology in understanding what I just asked, and thanks!)
And, while you are so daring as to enter into this mess, would you check and edit Piggyback basin? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC))
The Zoroaster plutonic rocks are grouped together, but aren't a stratigraphic unit as such. Another complication is that the Rama and Brahma Schists are interbedded with the Vishnu Schist. It appears that the USGS now prefer to call the whole complex the Vishnu Basement Rocks [12], which agrees also with Karlstrom et al. That would probably be the best name for an article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll settle for non-statigraphic units. I will leave this open for more input, however, I think the Vishnu Basement Rocks might be best based on this resource. Thanks for the research and input. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Rock names

There's a lot of case inconsistency in the naming of rocks, e.g. Wunsiedel Marble, Cipollino marble, Ashford Black Marble, Pavonazzo marble. My understanding is that the lower case examples here are correct, as elsewhere on Wikipedia - Colorado potato beetle for example. Is that correct? Spicemix (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Most sources I see use capital letters, ie title case. This is because a rock unit name is a proper noun, and it includes the type of rock. This may be a bit dependent on the region. So we may need to check on a case by case basis to see who uses lower case. But if we have to pick one method I would say title case with capital M for Marble. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme. My reading is that minerals should be treated consistently and in the same way as animals and vegetables as laid down at MOS:LIFE. I can't see there should be any difference between Congo tetra and Bath Stone. Spicemix (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Graeme: London Clay for example is a proper noun and accordingly should be in title case. Otherwise one could be referring to any clay in London. Pterre (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer lower, but, even more, I prefer consistency and will abide by whatever others choose. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC))
Weak prefer on both being capitalized, per Graeme and Pterre. DanHobley (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems the rocks under discussion are commercial, architecture, artistic or quarry names rather than formally recognized stratigraphic units ... so the capitalization depends on usage in the sources. Rather obviously the folks quarrying and selling these marbles and such may name them as they wish for promotional purposes. Given that, it seems a Wiki article must be based on WP:RS usage. This should not be a problem for historically recognized marbles, but may be for those with a short history. See List of types of marble and List of types of limestone for examples. Vsmith (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The London Clay Formation is a formally recognised stratigraphical unit (though the article is not specifically named as such). Bath Stone and Purbeck Marble are historic names of long provenance which are traditionally refered to in title case in the UK. Pterre (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Vsmith that where the names are proprietary they should follow the source with title case – see here for example. I think though that will prove to be a small number of WP articles. Purbeck Marble for example is not a brand name, but a widely-distributed rock with a long history of exploitation. Though WP:MOS doesn't specifically treat geological terms, it has many analogous examples: fauna, flora, and scientific terms. If at this WikiProject we follow this general principle then we shan't be establishing a local consensus.

I don't think we can argue that Bath stone could be any stone found in Bath – Cantal cheese isn't understood to be any cheese found in Cantal. Spicemix (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

for fauna the common name has capital letters eg Yellow-headed Blackbird. But I think that we should be following whatever reliable sources use for our topics. Some terms will have entered the mass or commercial vocabulary and get a different result from the more academic use with capital letters. In Geology there are other structures such as Faults, Anticlines or Cratons to name a few that might have articles with capital letters. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
With Yellow-headed Blackbird, Graeme has hit on an example of what we should do best to avoid: a local consensus at a particular wikiproject that has (I read somewhere) been bitterly disputed over a series of RfCs and is currently tolerated provided the usage is restricted to ornithological articles. So if that bird is mentioned in say the article on a particular country, then it must be styled yellow-headed blackbird, in line with normal wiki-usage. There is a mess too at Odonata and Lepidoptera, where upper-casing is permitted but not required.[13] I'm hoping that on this project we can have a style consistent with Wikipedia as a whole, to avoid confusing the reader.

Graeme is quite right that particular geological features, such as Mariana Trench are proper names and so upper-case. Spicemix (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Under which I would include London Basin, Hampshire Basin etc. I would also include London Clay, Bath Stone, York Stone, Purbeck Marble, etc which are very specific rock types and also amount to proper nouns. I would not include for example Dartmoor granite, of which there are several types. Pterre (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" ...
seems rather irrelevant what the bird and butterfly folks quibble about. Formally named ones: caps, others - simply follow the reliable sources for each marble article. Seems the only place for possible concern would be in an article discussing various marbles. Vsmith (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It is very relevant that they must quibble a lot due to indefensible policy. We should set one that does not require us to waste time quibbling. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
Agree as regards caps for formal stratigraphic names eg Fishguard Volcanic Group or 'Kidderminster Conglomerate Formation', and also for specific geographical entities which amount to proper nouns eg Kalahari Craton or Alston Block (just as both parts of the specific names of rivers and bays etc are generally capitalised). A linked issue is whether in the naming of rock units, the article uses the formal name or a variant. Where the variant is in popular use then that makes sense, and including the formal name in the lede of the article. Redirects can assist here too. More obscure (but still notable) rock units are perhaps more likely to appear under their formal names as they will be discussed by experts proportionately more than lay people. In England, geologists may refer formally to the Millstone Grit Group ( a redirect on WP to Millstone Grit) but use 'Millstone Grit' as shorthand, experts of another kind - those who climb the rock - may refer to 'millstone grit' or indeed simply 'millstone' - different communities of interest use language in different ways. There will always be some inconsistency though - the world is an inconsistent place and Wikipedia reflects this. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
As has been said, it comes down to whether a term is a proper noun or not. Is there a significant difference in that regard between Bath Stone and Rosetta Stone and Purbeck Marble and Elgin Marbles? Following the sources in matters of style is often chaotic because different sources have different house styles, e.g. the BBC writes 19th Century, The Times 19th century. There will be many high-quality geological fieldguides that capitalize simply to aid quick identification. For all arguable and subjective cases like this WP:MOS has agreed a standard to be applied across Wikipedia for the reader's ease of understanding. Perhaps we should canvas the advice of someone expert at MOS? Spicemix (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of getting some input from the general MOS audience. Please do. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

A possible problem with attribution / copyvio / close paraphrasing

Hi all,
I suspect that much of the content in Superior Craton, and some other craton articles, is directly copied from sources, or at least very closely paraphrased; but I don't have access to most of the sources, and I'm no geological guru. Could anybody help? bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Gah...! Well the refs are still there in the history for "rebuilding" for someone with access. Recall trying to help the user but that was ~7 years ago - see next section. Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

egu logo.png

File:Egu logo.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Usarray installation plan.jpg

image:Usarray installation plan.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Template:Geology2 infobox

Hi all,

Recently, this infobox showed up on a bunch of our project articles. User:Harizotoh9 has clearly put in a bunch of effort on this, but I feel fairly strongly that in almost all cases here it's actively cluttering up the articles. I feel like:

1. We should put some effort as a community into thinking what we want to have in the list, and 2. I'd advocate we should turn this into a strap at the bottom, rather than an infobox at the top.

Thoughts? I note there's already been some discussion over at User_talk:Harizotoh9, but it appeared to have died and this seems a more open forum. I guess I'm also advocating stripping the thing from a large number of places, so wanted to get feedback before I do. DanHobley (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just remove it from the articles you don't feel it belongs to. There should likely be several more targeted info boxes that would be more appropriate for other articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blog critiquing Wikipedia

Just thought I'd alert you to this new blog, Bad Science, which critiques some of poorly written science articles on Wikipedia (specifically about articles involving geology). They go into a very detailed dissection of articles which really leads to larger questions of how articles are pieced together from an assortment of sources, how there is original research even just interpreting those references and the wisdom of having a Good Article review from individuals who have no knowledge of the subjects they are reviewing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I read number 10, and was amused by the way the blogger made milestones, like writing an FA article or becoming an admin, sound almost dirty. However, the detailed discussions might be useful. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

This submission is relevant to your Project. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

...and here's another relevant submission: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Association of GeoanalystsAnne Delong (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have accepted the first, and created a new category category:seismic networks. If any one has a better category let me know, but otherwise there could be a few articles around to add to this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The second needs more independent coverage. Anyone can help out to add more good referencing to it if they wish. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

European Cenozoic Rift System

Hello !
I have created the article fr:Rift ouest-européen (west-european Rift) on the french Wikipedia, but I see it has no equivalent article on the english Wikipedia to create an interwiki link. However, I had see the article European Cenozoic Rift System which could be an equivalent, but the west-european rift is just a (big) part of the European Cenozoic Rift System, which is composed of the west-european Rift, the northwestern Mediterranean Rift and the North Sea Rift. How can I link the french article Rift ouest-européen with an english article ? Thanks, Juraastro (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC).

The West-European rift appears to be nearly identical to the ECRIS as defined by Pierre Dèzes, Stefan Schmid and Peter Ziegler in their paper in 2004. The North Sea Rift system hasn't been active since the Early Cretaceous, so wouldn't be considered part of it as far as I can tell. They say that "The southern part of ECRIS consists of the grabens of the Massif Central (Limagne, Roanne, Forez), the Bresse Graben and the grabens of the lower Rhône Valley (e.g., Valence, Alès, Manosque, Camargue) and their prolongation into the Western Mediterranean". We could expand our article to cover these more southerly basins, what you refer to as the northwestern Mediterranean Rift, but currently I would say that the ECRIS would be the best match for your article. Mikenorton (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
All right, thanks ! I note a divergence about the Lower Rhin Graben ; in the article European Cenozoic Rift System, it is include in the ECRIS while my sources say it is a composant of the North Sea Rift system. Otherwise, it appears that the Northwestern Mediterranean Rift is independant of the West-european Rift. Juraastro (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC).