Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Portals Nominated for Deletion

The portals Portal:Mesozoic, Portal:Paleozoic, and Portal:Cretaceous have been nominated for deletion. Just to restate the non-obvious, the articles have not been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussions are at:

Your involvement is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
A shame, honestly! I quite liked portals, they've just never really been part of an intuitive way to use the site. The only portal you're likely to encounter in regular use is the main page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the problems with portals is that they are fun to create, but maintaining them is tedious maintenance work. The main page has a lot of volunteers who work to maintain it, and they evidently enjoy what they are doing, but it gets a lot more visibility than maintaining a portal on an era. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Impact structures

A significant number of the impact structures identified on Earth are described on Wikipedia as "impact craters" even when this is not how the majority of sources describe them. Rochechouart, Vredefort and Popigai have all been moved, but there are many others that should also be moved, based on an analysis of Google Scholar results: Acraman, Tookoonooka, Araguainha, Saint Martin, Woodleigh, Carswell, Manson, Shoemaker, Mistastin, Steen River, Tunnunik, Gosses Bluff and Dhala. Additionally the list of impact craters on Earth should be moved to list of impact structures on Earth. Thoughts? Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that describing impact structures erroneously as craters is widespread in a lot of lay literature, and to a lesser extent some academic papers. I'll get around to making move requests for all of these in the next week. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I've started the ball rolling with a move request for the list. Mikenorton (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Aye, even in academia the terms are used loosely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware that "crater" is used rather loosely. Having visited the Siljan Ring, I'm more than surprised to find it called a crater in some scientific journal articles , although in some cases they're talking about the original form of the crater at the time of impact. Mikenorton (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the categories would also need sorting out. Vredefort (and other similar highly eroded structures) are in subcategories that sit within the category "Impact craters on Earth". Mikenorton (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The categories also need to be sorted out. Paul H. (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Update - I've moved most of those listed above, but left three of them as further analysis showed that the naming was more equivocal than I had first thought. I've also moved all the lists by continent. That leaves the lists by country and the categories. I've contacted user:Ikluft regarding the categories as this would be a major change to a category tree that they set up. None of the moves have been contested (yet). Mikenorton (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
What are the three "impact craters" that "...further analysis showed that the naming was more equivocal than I had first thought."? Paul H. (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Araguainha, Mistastin and Tunnunik. Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Flammenmergel

Hi, just wondering if someone could look at Flammenmergel - it doesn't seem to contain much information and could maybe be merged somewhere else (but I'm not sure where). Thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There is an entry for the Flammenmergel formation in the BGR online Litholex lithostratigraphic lexicon for Germany. Mikenorton (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at that, I see that the Group that this formation forms part of does not have an article, so that reduces our options. The list of sedimentary formations in Germany might be an option if all the wikidata from here was added in (although the Flammenmergel is not included I note). Mikenorton (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Eemian or Last Interglacial?

I assume paleoclimatology is in scope for this project? I've been doing some reading about the topic of the Eemian/Last Interglacial, and it seems to me that Eemian is really a Europe specific term, and that "Last Interglacial" is more widely used in the scientific literature for global coverage of this period, often without mentioning the term "Eemian" at all. Should the title of the article be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Could be. The last interglacial is known under several names of which "Eemian" is the most common but still less common than "Last Interglacial". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I've made a move request, see Talk:Eemian#Requested_move_28_February_2024. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eemian#Requested move 28 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eemian#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the rankings for low abundance elements in the table

Please weigh in on my proposal on Talk:Abundance of elements in Earth's crust to split the table on that page. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Stratigraphy model article

Among other topics I'm hoping to work on for the project, I have a hobby interest in geology, and thought I could do some good attending to the infinite list of tiny, poorly-written stratigraphy articles. Obviously, not all units are created equal but as I'm bungling around with these, a format exemplar would sure be handy. Is Marcellus Formation the best model article to use as far as overall structure and article goals are concerned? Lubal (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lubal. The Marcellus Formation does indeed look a good model to follow. Not sure you'll find that level of detail on many other formations though! If you're interest in UK units the BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units is a good place to start. Silica Cat (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The Marcellus and Touchet formation articles are the most detailed ones I'm aware of. I also redid the Big Raven Formation article recently which is a GA nominee. Volcanoguy 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Appreciated! Having some idea what the structure should look like makes this a lot easier. I'm going to be starting with Kansas/Missouri stratigraphy which seems fine, because wow, that subtopic area needs some love. I've been cleaning up Bonneterre Formation, but I'll probably move things around there a little bit before adding more content (of which there's quite a bit, including economic impact), just so it's laid out vaguely like the existing high-quality articles. Not that I'm going to pretend I'm writing high-quality articles, at least not yet. Lubal (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I should note that since all geological formations are of different sizes and compositions it would be impossible to bring all articles about formations up to the level of detail as the Marcellus Formation article, especially if there's less information about a specific formation. Both Big Raven Formation and Edziza Formation passed GAN this month. Volcanoguy 22:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the sub-articles on crystalline types of ice

Please weigh in on my proposal on Talk:Ice#Merge all the ice sub-types into Phases of ice? to merge content from that page and the linked stub/start-class pages into a single medium-sized page. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology/Archive_8&oldid=1229236051"