Talk:Geology of the Lake District

Akhurst et al 1998

I've added this as a reference, despite being one of the coauthors, because it's the only paper that has looked at this structure in detail. I mention this should anyone think that I am promoting my own work (although as you can see it was a large group of geologists involved). Mikenorton (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Geological map

User:Mikenorton, thanks for creating this article. I think it is progressing nicely. I offer a suggestion: please add a scale to the geological map. I hope that this would not be a big/difficult task. —GeoWriter (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I had meant to do that - thanks for the reminder, now updated. I know that the Quaternary section should be expanded, but is there anything else that you think is obviously missing? I had thought to put in an "economic geology" section, with sub-sections perhaps on "mining", "building stones" and "aggregate", although I don't want it to repeat too much of the mineralisation section. Mikenorton (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, most sections could be expanded further, but I think that it's fairly complete now. The only other section that I'm thinking of adding is about the Nirex investigations in the late '80s to mid '90s, although I was deeply involved in them (both at Sellafield and Dounreay) so I would have to tread carefully. Fortunately, there is the chapter on this subject in David Oldroyd's book on the geology of the Lake District Earth, Water, Ice and Fire, which can be viewed here, which I can fall back on. Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) Bingobro (Chat) 10:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Geology of the Lake District → Geology of Cumbria – The Lake District is a subsection of Cumbria. The proposed rename would fix the current absence of a Cumbria article in the set of "Geology of English counties" articles. A separate Geology of Cumbria article would probably be a copy of this Lake District article with only a few minor additions. The Lake District of England is one of several (possibly more?) lake districts of the world and a rename to Geology of Cumbria (and conversion of "Geology of the Lake District" into a redirect to Geology of Cumbria) would avoid the need for future disambiguation if articles were created for the geology of these other lake districts. GeoWriter (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - the Lake District is only just over one third of the area of Cumbria - that's to say there is plenty of the county which is not the Lake District and which has geology distinct from that of the Lake District; descriptions of that geology would certainly not amount to 'minor additions'. It is perfectly possible to assemble a 'Geology of Cumbria' article to complete the county series and if that is what you want I shall produce it. In any case 'Geology of the Lake District' is one of an (as yet incomplete) series on the geology of the UK national parks which this proposed move would disrupt. A more convincing case could be made for the geology of the county of Pembrokeshire and that of the Pembrokeshire Coast NP to be treated in that fashion, but the Lakes/Cumbria - no! As to the Lake District being one of several around the world, I don't see that as any sort of argument - I'd suggest it may be the pre-eminent one (and I'd invite non-Brits to inform me otherwise) due not least to its many cultural highlights. Take a look at the current disambiguation page for 'Lake District' in that connection. It hasn't yet been thought necessary to qualify the title of this area as 'Lake District, England' for example so why apply that logic to a geology article for the area? I'd note too that students are probably more likely to be asked to investigate the 'geology of the Lake District' than that of the county of Cumbria (my apologies to the rest of Cumbria!) - the article is relevant and valid as it stands.. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that the admonition in the proposal box to 'base arguments on article title policy' is irrelevant in the context of the proposed move - this is much more than a proposed name change. Geopersona (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Geopersona, thanks for your reply. You have offered some good objections to this proposal and I agree with/accept all of them. Therefore, I no longer want this proposal to be implemented. GeoWriter (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

GeoWriter - thanks for your reconsideration. I had begun to put material together for a Geology of Cumbria article some long time ago but had left the short draft of it in abeyance. Perhaps now is the time to dust it off . . . and I might get round to putting some other 'Geology of (UK counties)' together! cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose - Although I'm aware that the current article describes a large chunk of the geology of the county of Cumbria, it was conceived as an article on the geology of the national park and its immediate surroundings. The fringing units are covered in less detail than the Ordovician core of the area and some parts of the county are not covered at all. It's already quite a long article at about 43 kb, so I'm not sure that the required expansion would be a good idea. That leaves the question about how a Geology of Cumbria article would look. It should, I think, have a more balanced geographical coverage and have less emphasis on the Ordovician and more on the younger units. Mikenorton (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further detail

Those wanting to view the geology of this and other UK National Parks for further edits to the article etc can visit the British Geological Survey’s ‘GeoIndex Onshore’ map-viewer at https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html - there are a considerable number of data layers available to click on or off but look for the ‘mineral planning authorities’ one in the right hand column of the drop down list. Since each national park authority in England and Wales is the mineral planning authority, that gives you the boundary of the national park. This can be used in conjunction with whichever geological data layers are chosen for display. Note that the relatively recent expansions of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales NPs are not yet reflected in that data, nor is the extent of the Cairngorms NP visible through this means. A further data layer – ‘Natural England National Park’ is available towards the bottom of the r.h. column in the drop-down list but only relates to NPs in England (and does include the expanded areas of the Lakes and Dales). Using this data layer (which presents as coloured polygons without outlines), adjustments need to be made to the transparency of the layers so that both the bedrock geology (for example) and the NP shape are both visible. thanks Geopersona (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)