Talk:Sinistral and dextral

Merge Sinistral and Dextral

The content of these two articles are nearly carbon copies of each other. It would be benificial to merge these into a new article, which I suggest to be sinistral and dextral. +mt 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - merge 'em. Vsmith 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. +mt 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into transform fault. Tranletuhan (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Strike-slip tectonics would be more appropriate IMO, but I'm not convinced that would be a good idea either, I lean towards keeping it as it is. Mikenorton (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation

it seems that tier are 3 articles of separate topics that are referenced by the name of this article it may bee a good idea to create a disambiguation page and rename this one to represent the topic better.

Kateweb (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to dab

I agree -- this is really a disambiguation page. The substantive content belongs in articles about faults, about gastropods, about flatfish, and about anatomy: dextral and sinistral are not encyclopedia topics in themselves. (cf. WP:DICT) --Macrakis (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree: This is starting to look like a good idea. Even from an earth science perspective, it sinistral/dextral might describe gastropod fossils or faults. I might take this on in the next week or so (unless someone else wants to jump in). I'm still thinking about how much (or not) content should be included in such dab page, and where it should be handed over to the specific uses (all details in this article? different articles? merge to other existing articles?). Hmm .. hmm. +mt 07:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree' - Makes sense to me as well. If Mwtoews hasn't got around to it when I get back from holiday, I might have a go. Mikenorton (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, many months have passed, but I finally made an attempt to turn the article into a disambiguation article. It's a fine line between having too much content for MOS:DAB, and not enough to be useful. I was contemplating adding more content and pictures to contrast the use of the terms. But I chose to have less content here, to be more in style of a proper disambiguation article. I may have possibly cut too much out, in which case dig back in the history and add to the target article instead of here. However, please feel free to make edits to what I've done. +mt 08:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Objection to dab format

• This is not properly a disambiguation page; if it were, then every link not including the phrase "Sinistral and dextral" would need to be removed, in conformance with WP:MOSDAB, which would leave nothing on this page. Please do not misuse the disambiguation bit. This is clearly nothing more than a list of things that can be characterized as having a certain kind of division. The article should be about the use of that classification system. bd2412 T 21:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I see your point and I'm wondering how best to handle this....

The underlying concept is chirality or orientation (both of these are dab pages...), and it applies to flatfish (dextral/sinistral), shoes (left/​right), screw threads (left-handed/​right-handed), coordinate systems (ditto), rotation on a plane perpendicular to an observer's line of sight (clockwise/​counterclockwise), molecules (rectus/​sinister, dextrorotatory/​levorotatory, +/-, etc.).

We could simply redirect dextral/​sinistral to chirality. But that wouldn't be very helpful for the user who encountered the concept in a particular context, e.g. a sinistral flatfish. There is no general definition of dextral/​sinistral which will allow the reader to identify a dextral flatfish or a right-handed screw thread from the general definition of dextral=right -- you also need to define the convention: is a dextral flatfish one with the eyes on the right side of the body (the standard definition), or one that lies on its right side?

So it seems that somehow we need to get from the term "dextral" to its particular applications, each of which is different in detail. Pointing from 'dextral' to 'flatfish' (which defines dextral/sinistral for flatfish) seems like a helpful way to do that, even if it is not strictly speaking disambiguation. Similarly, though 'dextral' and 'sinistral' are certainly not synonyms, it's pointless to treat them separately.

What do you think would be a better way to organize things so that they are both logically coherent and helpful to the reader? --Macrakis (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'll agree that it is not a proper DAB article. The info at WP:CONCEPTDAB is helpful. When I converted it to a "DAB" article on 24 July 2011, I was aware that the result was not a proper disambiguation article. I think what needs to happen is to convert it to a broad topic article, listing the uses in different disciplines, which I think are all scientific terminology. I don't think this would be difficult to do: just remove the disambiguation parts, restructure, and possibly add more content (some of which is already in the history). The prime focus needs to make this article be helpful to direct users to the main articles (flatfishes, faults, etc). +mt 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the prime focus needs to be directing users to the main articles. But there is no need for additional "conceptual" discussion -- the concept is already discussed in chirality (for some cases) and relative direction (for other cases). --Macrakis (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Then these should be redirected to whichever of those is the most appropriate target in which to provide the links on this page as examples of the concept. bd2412 T 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your suggestion; what are the "these" that should be redirected? --Macrakis (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

These terms - Sinistral, Dextral, and Sinistral and dextral. bd2412 T 16:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps relative direction should be the base target for all of these. bd2412 T 20:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Relative direction and chirality are quite distinct concepts. Relative direction is observer-centric -- even a symmetrical object has a left and a right side if the top/bottom and direction of observation are defined. But chirality is observer-independent: it doesn't matter how you look at a right-hand screw thread, it remains different from a left-hand screw thread. --Macrakis (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That distinction seems like a very important concept, but is there any article in Wikipedia that explains it? I seems to me that we should have an article at Chirality explaining the fundamental concept, and that the links on this page and that one, should be discussed in the context of whether they express actual chirality, or whether the division into sinistral and dextral elements of a geolical fault, for example, are merely arbitrary. It seems to me that the flatfish eyes and the gastropod shell may be discussed in terms of dextral and sinistral parts precisely because they exhibit chirality. bd2412 T 16:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

• This is an interesting problem: The terms have a currency, but seem to mean different things in different contexts (in faultlines it represents relative movement and in gastropods it's chirality, if I've read it correctly). And it doesn't work as a dab page.

  Can I suggest to resolve it you limit this article to examples of the use of the terms themselves (ie. shells, flatfish, faultlines, possibly others); have a short paragraph (with a main article link) on each example, focusing on the meaning of the term, and how it is defined (how do you tell a dextral from a sinistral flatfish?) and put any similar terms (dextro-/ laevo-rotationary, clockwise/anti-clockwise) in a "see also" section. And I’d focus on scientific uses, and put the heraldry link in a hatnote at the top, as it is on the Dexter and sinister page. What do you reckon? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  PS: I've knocked together a draft, here.Moonraker12 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is definitely a move in the right direction I think, although the title of the 'main' geological article will take a bit of thought. I've made a few changes to your draft, I hope that's OK. Mikenorton (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

+1: This is one of the ideas I was thinking about too. +mt 22:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I would move the entire thing into Relative direction#Tradition and acculturation, which begins to discuss this, and would also redirect Chirality there as the primary general meaning. bd2412 T 14:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If S&D only described relative direction I might agree; but they don’t. Likewise if Chirality was the same as RD; but it isn’t. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. An article defining a "term" or word rather than specifying a concept is not an encyclopedia article, but a dictionary entry:

Sinistral and dextral are scientific terms that describe chirality (“handedness”) or relative direction in a number of disciplines.

(my emphasis) . Encyclopedias are about things and concepts; dictionaries are about words/terms. Moreover, sinistral/dextral are simply synonyms for left/right in certain contexts. For example, flatfishes may be described as "dextral" or as "right-eyed". There are other synonyms as well. For example, yarn twist may be described as left/right handed or S/Z twist. As far as I can tell, there are two quite distinct concepts here:

• chirality -- a property of a thing which is reversed under reflection
• relative direction -- a property of a thing which depends on the observer

In any particular field (e.g. ichthyology or textile science or machine tools) conventions need to be adopted to define what exactly is left or right or sinistral or dextral. In the relative direction case, there are certainly broad conventions in many cases -- that we consider an observer standing on his/her feet, perpendicular to the earth, and the object oriented in the standard way. Thus the "left" of a painting is typically defined as the left side as seen by a normal viewer (not a character in the painting) from the front of the painting. Similarly, "stage left" is as seen by the audience, not by the actor.

It would be wrong to talk about chirality and relative direction separately in the dextral/sinistral article and in the left/right article -- or for that matter in the textile spinning article -- these need to be unified conceptually. As there are two concepts corresponding to the names sinistral/left and dextral/right, namely chirality and relative direction, we need one article pointing the user to the appropriate meaning -- which depends on the field. This may not be a standard disambiguation article, but it is very similar. Writing about the substance of chirality or relative direction in the dextral/sinistral article as well as the left/right article as well as the S/Z twist article isn't the WP way. --Macrakis (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help users avoid confusion between similarly named articles, like Mercury and Mercury. This page has zero articles sharing the name of the page title, but merely points to articles for fields in which the terms are used to indicate a directional dichotomy. Since this page would not survive an AFD as it stands, I am trying to move it in the direction of something that would. Granted, it might do so at this title, but not as a "disambiguation" page. bd2412 T 03:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, we have many articles on words - for example, Hello. I think what is needed here is something more like the solution we reached with Particle. bd2412 T 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure what either of you want, here.

As far as I can see this article started out as a piece on slip faults in geology. It then acquired other examples of the usage, and to resolve that problem it was turned into a dab page. Then we were told it doesn’t fit the format for a dab page, so it has to be something else. So the latest proposal is a set of brief explanations with links, and you are saying we can’t do that either.

It strikes me this is a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good (or even, the adequate being the enemy of the not too bad!) All this page needs to do is give an answer to someone who comes across the term sinistral (or dexrtral) and wants to know more about it (ie more than what they’d find in a dictionary). We already have the articles on the various concepts.

We could always go back to the geology page, and have separate articles on S&D in gastropods, etc; or we could do something like this. It isn't brain surgery. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored the valid geology page with references. The attempt at a disambiguation page failed as it resulted in confusion and loss of valid info. Continue the discussion if you wish, but don't delete content in the process. Vsmith (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Guess that came off as rather gruff :) The userpage proposed by Moonraker has potential... I see the concepts are discussed in flatfish and gastropod articles. Vsmith (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Gruff?" -- I would say grossly disrespectful of your fellow editors. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and yet, instead of engaging your fellow editors there, you characterize their efforts as "mucked up dab nonsense"? Please see Wikipedia:Civility.

On the substance, there are several problems:

• I see no reason to believe that the ordinary user of Wikipedia would be primarily interested in dextral/sinistral in the context of geologic faults.
• The topic seems already to be covered under Shear (geology) and Fault (geology) (already with some redundancy there). Why does it need another article?
• Perhaps we should now create an article Upper and lower, which of course should discuss the difference between the Upper and Lower Devonian, since geological senses appear to trump other senses. Or maybe Upper Egypt vs. Lower Egypt, or upper vs. lower class, etc.?

--Macrakis (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've come around to thinking that Moonraker's solution is the best direction to go. I don't see why we can't implement that solution at Chirality and redirect Sinistral and dextral to that title. I think it is somewhat odd to have an article title that is a pure adjective. bd2412 T 15:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My solution?? In what way is redirecting this page to Chirality my solution? And (as has been pointed out several times) S&D doesn’t only express chirality; it is used to express relative direction as well. Two different concepts, you see? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was unclear. I meant that your solution in terms of the content and layout of the page was the best solution; however, I was asking why not, on top of that, merge and redirect to a title more broadly encompassing this pair of adjectives. I have now come to think that both this title and Chirality should be merged and redirected by section into Relative direction, which encompasses all of these concepts and can be expanded to accommodate them. I am generally dubious about having adjectives as article titles in any case, as adjectives are not "things" themselves, but merely characteristics of things (i.e. "tall" is not a thing, "tallness" or "height" is). bd2412 T 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the DAB project from this talk page as we all agree that a DAB article is not the way to go. I think Moonraker12's article is a good candidate to provide the best solution. If there isn't any strong disagreement for this solution in the next week, I'd say we move Moonraker12's article over here and call it done. +mt 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to centralize all information about chirality and relative direction in general in one place each, and all information about chirality and relative direction for particular applications within those applications. I don't think it's useful to have a page on sinistral/dextral which repeats the information found in detail articles, especially since much of this information is the same as left/right. Otherwise, we'll end up having discussion of dextral flatfish under both sinistral and dextral and under flatfish. And what about the difference between right-eyed in the sense of ocular dominance and right-eyed in the sense of dextral flatfish? ... --Macrakis (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When you say "one place each" do you mean one article for chirality and one article for relative direction, with information on sinistral/dextral merged into one or both of them? bd2412 T 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though once "absolute" directions are defined (what is up, from what direction are you looking at a thing), then relative direction is a matter of chirality.

I also mean that in almost all cases, "sinistral/dextral" is simply an alternative name for "left/right". In fact, "left-lateral fault" is more common than "sinistral fault" both in Google Web Search (7:1) and Google Book Search (1.8:1). So it doesn't make sense to have an article about dextral/sinistral separate from left/right. --Macrakis (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that takes us back to my earlier proposition that all of this be merged and redirected by section to Relative direction, which I think is the broadest conceptual framework under which all of these concepts sit. Even if chirality can be said to exist distinctly from observer-based relative direction, if the object exhibiting chirality is itself characterized as the "observer" then it always has a relative direction. bd2412 T 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The current Relative direction article doesn't discuss the general notion of chirality (as in s/z twist), though it is in the Category:Chirality. Maybe you see it as quite different from what it currently is? --Macrakis (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am proposing is that it should discuss chirality (and sinistrality and dextrality), and that once a section discussing those concepts is added to Relative direction, the titles can be redirected to that section. bd2412 T 17:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're proposing to merge relative direction and chirality? That doesn't seem intuitive: do you think of "turning left and turning right" (relative direction) as the same concept as "left glove vs. right glove" (chirality)? The left and right dab page will also need some work.... --Macrakis (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the concept we are looking for is relative orientation, rather then direction. However, there is an overarching relatedness in the concept of their being left and right at all, whether this is from the perspective of the traveler or from the perspective of the object expressing chirality. There is, ultimately, a single umbrella concept under which all of these can be discussed and compared, without needing to repeat the same material in two or three different articles. bd2412 T 00:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly a conventional connection. But though I've never had any trouble telling left from right, I don't find the connection between my left side and a left-handed screw to be direct or intuitive (though of course by now I've internalized the notion of a right-hand thread being the standard screw-it-in-clockwise (as viewed from the perspective of the person facing the screw head) thread. The textile science terms "S-twist" and "Z-twist" are much more evocative for me. All that to say that though gloves and yarn are both chiral, the association of the name "left/sinistral" to S-twist or sinistral/left-hand gastropods or sinistral flatfish is pretty much arbitrary. --Macrakis (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BD: If you are serious about wanting to merge Chirality and Relative direction I strongly suggest you open a merge discussion first, so the people there have a chance to say what a rotten idea it is. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That is rather uncalled for. bd2412 T 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Macrakis: you seem interested in the concept of chirality: We don’t have an article on it as such, only the dab page. I've posted a proposal there if you care to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, there is some level of abstraction high enough to cover all concepts of things not being the same in both directions. Whatever the name of the concept is at this higher level of abstraction, we lack an article on it, which is rather like having articles on different schools of philosophy but no article on "philosophy" or articles on different musical instruments but no article on "musical instrument". The question, therefore, is: what is the name of the concept most broadly encompassing relative orientation, chirality, sinistrality and dextrality? bd2412 T 02:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe "chirality" is the most general. Though it is not a very familiar word, I don't think relative direction or relative orientation capture the sense. --Macrakis (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there’s no “obviously” about it.

A brief look at Relative direction and the various Chirality articles would show they are completely different subjects, with very little in common. As for a “higher level of abstraction”, Chirality is categorized as Symmetry, (together with stuff like laterality and handedness) and leads on to Mathematics, while RD is categorized as Orientation (with stuff like co-ordinate systems, and cardinal points), which leads to stuff like Space technology and Geography. In fact, going up the category tree, they don’t meet until you reach Natural Sciences; do you really want to merge them into an all-embracing article entitled "Natural Sciences"?

So I would suggest what we are looking at is not two subjects with a "higher level of abstraction" at all, but with a lower level of description ie. they both use the terms “left” and “right” in their own particular ways. As do philosophers of the left and politicians of the left; should we merge them? How about bagpipes and clay pipes? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker, though I agree with many of your substantive points, I don't agree with your tone. I think BD2412 is making a good-faith effort to do the right thing. The connection between relative direction and chirality is that you need chirality to express relative direction. To describe "left" to the man from Mars, you'd have to agree on some sort of shared reference for chirality. --Macrakis (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker, is it your position that the conceptual relationship between chirality and directionality is equivalent to the conceptual relationship between music and smoking? bd2412 T 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Macrakis: Maybe I’m being gruff, here, too, but this discussion is a little exasperating. The original objection was that it didn’t fit as a dab page; that was pretty much accepted straight out of the gate, yet here we are still debating it. Which leaves us with a half Kb page (which was never bigger than three and a half Kb anyway) with (by now) 27 Kb of debate over what to do with it. It shouldn't be this complicated! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

BD: My position, as you put it, is that Relative Direction describes a co-ordinate system (one entirely dependent on the point of view of the observer), while Chirality is the phenomenon that mirror images, while superficially similar, are in fact incompatible ie. they cannot be superimposed: So that apart from sharing some terms, they are entirely different subjects.

It is also my position that if you feel they are the same, or at least similar enough to merge them together, you should offer some evidence of the fact, rather than repeatedly stating it as an opinion.

And I thought my analogy was clear enough, but as RD and Chirality are three and four steps away from a common category (natural science), while Music and Smoking are only two steps away from Human behaviour, maybe the latter actually do have rather more in common with each other than the former. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Relative direction describes a coordinate system, and chirality is part of that coordinate system, so there is some connection. And the categories can probably be improved.

I wonder if we can find a good reliable source for all this instead of debating among ourselves.... I will try to look. --Macrakis (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one source that equates chirality with relative orientation, and a dozen or so that discuss chirality and relative direction, including several that define chirality as a function of relative direction, for example Chang-Peng Li, Nanofabrication, Nanomagnetism and Other Applications of Nanostructures (2007), p. 67, stating: "The chirality of spins in the vortex state depends upon the relative direction between the vortex core motion and the initial saturation magnetization"; and William Jones, Organic Molecular Solids: Properties and Applications (1997), p. 164: "No phenyl-phenyl product will be generated because no energy transfer is possible. The resulting dimer will have a chirality determined by the relative direction of motion with respect to the twofold screw axis". That said, I would expect to find a lot more such sources connecting the two if they were truly equivalent concepts. Still, I do not understand why sinistrality and dextrality can not be merged into chirality, if the primary meaning of those adjectives is to express chiral states. bd2412 T 00:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that the term chirality is never used to describe geological structures (faults, shear zones etc.) so I don't see why that usage of dextral/sinistral should come under chirality. Mikenorton (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why that matters. Remember, Wikipedia is organized around concepts, not names of concepts. The names are a convenient way of finding articles, nothing more. --Macrakis (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is why I referred to a primary meaning, rather than a sole meaning. All other uses of dextral and sinistral that have been discussed here (in subatomic particles, molecules, gastropods, and flatfish) are chiral; geology is an arbitrary exception to the pattern, and one that can be handled with a hatnote and possibly a comment in the article. bd2412 T 15:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Geology may be an exception, but an exception that is the commonest use of the terms dextral and sinistral (by some way), which is why I support Moonraker12's proposal, which everyone else except Mwtoews seems to be ignoring. Mikenorton (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I support Moonraker's proposal as an ex

I am not ignoring Moonraker12's proposal, I just want to be sure we do not end up needlessly repeating material that could conceivably be discussed in a single place, or a smaller number of places. As it stands, it certainly appears that we will need a separate article on chirality, but I see no need for a separate article on dextrality and sinistrality when the use of those terms with respect to geology is arbitrary. In any case, it seems to me that the geological use is not as adjectives in the abstract, but is tied to faults, so an article on the topic would properly be at Sinistral and dextral faults, if that concept were not already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think that the solution proposed by Moonraker12 is the best one in the short term (and possibly longer term) and I support his proposed sandbox draft, retaining the existing name. It may be less than perfect but it's a lot better than what we have now I reckon. Regarding the use of the terms 'dextral' versus 'right lateral' in geology, I've done my own google comparisons and found that overall "dextral (or sinistral) strike-slip (or shear)" is slightly more common than "right-lateral (or left-lateral) strike-slip (or shear)" from GoogleScholar or GoogleBooks results - widening this to include all web results gives 'right-lateral' as about twice as common as 'dextral'. In my view right-lateral is no more self-explanatory than dextral. Mikenorton (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think Moonraker's proposal is an excellent start. However, rather than put it under "Sinistral and dextral", I would put it at "chirality", and have "Sinistral and dextral" point to it as would a line of the left and right dab page. After all, "right" is used more commonly than "dextral" for (among other things) screw threads, coordinate systems; indeed, "dextral fault" is much less common than "right lateral fault" according to Google. As for relative direction vs. chirality, I think I am converging (to my surprise!) on bd2412's position. Left/right as relative directions are defined with respect to a particular chiral coordinate system, where we define "up" typically either as "away from the center of the earth" or as "towards my head rather than my feet". In the most common cases, these two definitions coincide; but not when I'm lying in bed or skydiving or whatever. Left/right faults are chiral in the same sense, with "up" being defined as "away from the center of the earth". I wonder what geologists' terminology is for ancient faults found in inverted strata? Is it "away from the center of the earth" as of today, or as of the time the fault was active? --Macrakis (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• To reiterate what I said above "overall "dextral (or sinistral) strike-slip (or shear)" is slightly more common than "right-lateral (or left-lateral) strike-slip (or shear)" from GoogleScholar or GoogleBooks results", note that the term 'dextral fault' is not often used without the term 'strike-slip' in between as dextral is a qualifier for 'strike-slip'. The descriptive terminology of faults refers primarily to the current fault plane and displacement vector orientations, although we may be able to rotate it back and estimate its original orientation. Mikenorton (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I support Moonraker's proposal as a first step to fixing this morass. Clearly neither "Chirality" nor "Sinistral and dextral" should be a disambig page. Perhaps it is best to get each of those pages into mainspace and further fleshed out before engaging in the separate question of what can or should be merged where. bd2412 T 13:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that Sinistral and dextral should simply be a redirect to Left and right, and then Left and right (which is a DAB page) should point to Chirality (based on Moonraker's draft) among others. After all, in principle WP pages are named by nouns, not adjectives. --Macrakis (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sinistral/dextral are not synomymous with left/right, a 'left fault' would mean nothing. Mikenorton (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, "left-lateral fault" is more common than "sinistral fault" both in Google Web Search (7:1) and Google Book Search (1.8:1). I have no objection to an redirect from sinistral fault and left-lateral fault to the appropriate geology article. But "sinistral" by itself has nothing inherently geological about it. --Macrakis (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that it is the commonest use of the term. Mikenorton (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the uses are "common", and all of them are used in restricted contexts, typically in collocations like "sinistral fault", "sinistral flatfish", etc. --Macrakis (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree that redirecting to "Left and right" would not work, as there exist abstract conceptions such as the political left and right, which bear only a tertiary relation to the physical senses of the term. I will adjust my position slightly in agreement with the nouns versus adjectives distinction, and propose that if we are to have a separate article on these concepts, the title should be Sinistrality and dextrality, with all variations of the terms redirecting to that title. bd2412 T 17:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The generic term for sinistrality and dextrality is... chirality. --Macrakis (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I think that those terms are generally used as synonyms for left and right handedness - sometimes adjective don't have equivalent nouns, in geology we have felsic and mafic and then there's calcareous (note that I'm not trying to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS excuse, just saying that sometimes it's what you end up with). Mikenorton (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• A Google Books search yields a handful of references to "sinistrality" or "dextrality" of faults, and a few hundred references to "sinistrality" or "dextrality" of things like molecules or anatomical features. bd2412 T 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can I ask where we are we up to with this, gents?

We seem to be agreed that the dab format isn’t working, and that the list of uses format is a reasonable first step away from it; also that the proposed draft is adequate for that purpose. Would this be accurate?

If so, and there are no objections, I will transfer it over, either tomorrow or the day after. Is that OK with everyone? Moonraker12 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. I had mentioned a week ago that I'd do this if there were no objections, and there are not any and I've been busy with life. Just to be clear, your draft article is a good interim solution (better than the DAB makeover), but it doesn't need to halt the above discussion, which I am slowly following and digesting the options. We can decide the fate of this article later (e.g., expand, merge/redirect). But I'd like to see you draft at least make it in the article history and serves as more appropriate content than the DAB attempt. +mt 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in case it's not obvious from the above, that would be great, even if it's only a temporary measure. Mikenorton (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do implement your draft, and let me know if you need an admin to move it over. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK done. I went with the cut-and-paste option (BD: thanks for the offer!), to preserve the page history here. I've had to leave left the draft’s edit history behind, so I should acknowledge that mike and mt also contributed to it; also that the idea was actually mt’s, originally.

Anyway, we might have a better idea of where to go from here, now. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Relative Direction

On the subject of the connection, or not, of Chirality and Relative direction, I’ve raised a point there about it; As we've discussed it here I’m wanting to give notice here in case anyone wishes to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

hemisphere relation

That caption makes some relation between the chirality and the hemisphere. If this is about influence of earth rotation it should have a citation. Otherwise it's more or less misleading. --Itu (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)