Talk:Way up structure

I couldn't find any reference anywhere to saggy bottoms. If you can find one, I'll be very happy to add it as another example. Mikenorton 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Geopetal vs. Way-up

Way up structure seems to be a colloquial term, and in fact, "geopetal" (according to Prothero and Schwab, 1996 and [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]) refers to paleo up, and not always void-fill structure. In other words, this article should be renamed to geopetal and the geopetal article should be reworded and renamed (maybe to Void-fill structure or Amygdule or Geopetal Amygdules?). --Qfl247 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that 'way-up structure' is colloquial. although perhaps 'way-up criterion' is more often used technically (I'll add that to the lede). There are many books and technical papers that use the term. IMO geopetal structures are distinct, they do show way-up, but they are the only ones that define a paleo-horizontal. Geopetal fillings occur in a wide range of environments e.g. solution cavity fills in karst areas, mineralisation fills of cavities in fossils and vesicle fills in lavas or high-level intrusives. This may be one of those terms that shows up a transatlantic divide, as in cleavage v. foliation. Mikenorton (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean... however, in the references I have (Prothro and Schwab, 1996, Sedimentary Geology), they lump things like cross bedding, ripple marks, and sole marks in geopetal structures. Maybe it is a UK vs. US thing... At the very least, I think geopetal should be expanded on this page (i.e. more than just the link), but I'm gonna do some more prodding of references to try to get to the bottom of this. --Qfl247 (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The term 'geopetal' was coined by Bruno Sander in 1936 meaning 'earth-seeking' and he used it for sedimentary structures, so in terms of the original coinage you are right. However, current usage mainly seems to also carry the implication of paleo-horizontal, e.g.[5]. Mikenorton (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From my geo dictionary: "Geopetal - Pertaining to any rock feature, e.g. cross-bedding, that indicates the relation of a top to bottom at the time of formation of the rock." (Bates and Jackson, 1984, Dictionary of Geological Terms, 3rd ed., Prepared by the American Geological Institue). From my first petrology book: "Geopetal structure - any feature or fabric that can be used to determine the original top and bottom of a sedimentary layer or other rock unit. Cut-and-fill structures and graded bedding are exemplary." (Dietrich and Skinner, 1979, Rocks and Rock Minerals). Yes, these may be US publications, but this difference in definition needs to be addressed. I am not against the paleo-horozontal part of the definition, but I do think that this page AT LEAST need to be combined Way up/Geopetal (i.e. we should merge the two pages into one and redirect one term to the other). By the way, I can not find ANY book that I own that even references Way Up structure as a synonym or in any other way; it is absent from every book I have looked at, including two different geological dictionaries. —--Qfl247 (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few examples that google books has let me look at:

Examples for 'way-up structure

• Martin Jackson in a book on salt diapirs
• Graham Park's book on Structural Geology
• John Collinson & David Thompson's Sedimentary structures (see caption to Figure 2.4 & Section 2.1.6)

Examples for 'way-up indicator'

• Gerard Middleton's Encyclopedia of sediments and sedimentary rocks, also uses 'way-up criteria'

Examples for 'way-up criterion' or criteria

• Bernard Biju-Duval's Sedimentary geology: sedimentary basins, depositional environments, see Figure 4.16

Examples for 'way-up evidence'

• Mike Leeder's Sedimentology and sedimentary basins: from turbulence to tectonics

Anyway, I don't want to get too carried away with this (at least any more than I have already). I'm used to way-up structure but it's clear to me after wading through all these books that the commoner usage is 'way-up' combined with various other things. As I said before, I'm aware that, when coined, Geopetal meant the same thing and still does to some geologists, particularly apparently in the German literature. To muddy the water still further, I found some references (including my own structural geology text-book 'An Outline of Structural Geology' by Bruce Hobbs, Wynn Means and Paul Williams which uses the unwieldy term "primary structures as evidence of younging" - no geopetal or 'way-up' for them) using 'evidence of younging direction' or similar. OK, so I'm probably a lot more confused now than when I started looking at this. I may need to go away and think about this a bit, or maybe call on some other eyes to take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello gentlemen. I'm also a working geologist (paleo and sed/strat), so I'll throw in what I think. For me and my colleagues, a "way-up structure" is anything which indicates the stratigraphic top. A "geopetal structure" is a type of way-up structure confined to some sort of void-fill. I'm ignoring any book definitions or original intents -- just considering how the terms have been used in my circles (which are international and all sed-strat-paleo). The written definitions are ultimately secondary to usage (which is why these things get so muddy so fast!). I would thus keep both pages and indicate that a geopetal structure is a type of way-up structure. Students will be looking up both terms so it is helpful to have two pages which refer to each other. In any case, I'm providing "some other eyes" for you two on the issue for your consideration. Wilson44691 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with either of you; I guess my concern is that there is a significant portion (what this portion is, no one knows) of geology people that might have never heard the term "way up" in any form, and only geopetal. A very non scientific survey of geologists at the Utah Geological Survey, where I work, were all geopetal... I will add more 'data' Monday. So shouldn't this be referenced in some way on this page or the geopetal page? Thanks for both of your efforts... I am not trying to step on toes, I just want things to be as accurate and complete as possible, as I am sure you do as well.--Qfl247 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm the opposite in fact: I've never heard "geopetal"; I have only heard "way up". I asked a friend of mine if she knew what it meant, and she didn't either. If there is this much confusion, maybe a solution could be to merge the two articles and talk about the general concept of finding original depositional up alongside the varied usages of the terminology. As a note: I am not a stratigrapher, so my grasp of the terminology is certainly sub-professional. Awickert (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, and update. My survey: Use Geopetal: 9 Use Way Up: 1 Use neither (i.e. does not know or use either): 8* Use something else (top indicator): 1 *Included in this group is the State Geologist of Utah, who is from New Zealand. I also found more references, and now have seen two important dictionaries that just might clear this up. In the 2005 (nearly 800 page) Glossary of Geology (AGI, 5th Ed.), it defines geopetal as "any rock feature that indicates the relation of top to bottom at the formation of the rock...such as cross-bedding" BUT defines geopetal structure as "A common structure of limestones where a cavity contains sediment in the lower part and cement (usually calcite) in the upper part." Another text, called The Penguin Dictionary of Geology by Whitten and Brooks (1972), is a UK dictionary. In it, it only has Way-up Criteria ("Any geological phenomena which enable the original orientation of a rock mass to be determined") and has no mention of geopetal, only what they call "Fossil spirit levels." So, in conclusion, I think this clearly shows that we are all right in some way, and the two articles (geopetal and Way up structure) should be merged and reworded, with redirects pointing to the merged page, and I plan to do this unless there are significant objections or unless someone has a better idea of what to do with this issue. --Qfl247 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I will put a special section for "geopetal structure" being the paleo-horizontal void-fill structure within this merged page.

I agree. This article should be renamed to Geopetal structure. The primary literature refers to these structures as geopetal structures. The other names should remain. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)