Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Help on Meander scar

I've done some cleanup on Meander scar, and I want a second look at one issue that is unclear. In finding sources, it became apparent to me that there are two uses of the term. In one case it's used generally to mean the dried up meander, or at least a cutoff meander, and sometimes it's used almost synonymously with an oxbow lake. The other case it's used to describe the undercut slopes in crescent shapes that form on the outer edge of a meander, or when that meander is cutoff and fills with water, an oxbow lake.

I want to know if this dual definition is in fact what's going on, or if I'm confused about them. Any help would be appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I generally see two related uses: the relatively sharp topography formed by a cutoff abandoned meander (with no oxbow lake), and the scarp against a valley wall created by a meander that is later cut off. I've never seen it used synonymously with "oxbow lake", though I think I know what you're saying in that it's an oxbow lake until it doesn't have any water in it anymore, and then it's a meander scar. The article looks pretty good IMO, I'll make some edits when I get the chance, Awickert (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate it. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for use of colour in SVG diagrams.

Colour seem to be used randomly on SVG geological diagrams, so that a strata may be beige on one diagram and pink on another diagram which is pasted below it in an article. Some diagrams are garish. Taken as a whole it makes geological pages look a mess. Have a missed the style guidelines or hasn't it been written yet?

More urgently, what colours do I use to represent a gritstone strata, and shale in a diagram referring to coal measures in the Lancashire coal field?

Is there some agreed convention- such as the Guardian style guide, or Harvard Non-bracket references- that is industry standard? --ClemRutter (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Most national geological surveys use particular colours for particular age rock and/or lithology, although that is often conveyed using an ornament. The BGS do have a standard set of colours that they use for the coal measures. I have a couple of old 1" to a mile BGS maps of Somerset which use greys for the lower Coal measures (coals in black) and browns for the overlying Pennant Series (mainly sandstones). They may have a specific colour scheme for the Namurian in Lancashire, but I'm not sure how you would find out without getting hold of one of their maps. However, there is nothing to stop people producing sections and maps using any colour scheme they feel like, but certain colours do tend to be used e.g. Jurassic=blue & Cretaceous=green (as in London Basin). For general stratigraphic colouring many people use the ICS chart as a basis, although when your dealing with more detailed breakdowns of age and lithology this is normally insufficient. Mikenorton (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not addressing your urgent question, but going by lithology and not age, igneous rocks are generally shades of red, alluvium (recently cemented or not) is yellow, and brighter colors (e.g., blues and greens) often go to sedimentary rocks so that they can be easily distinguished from one another. Occasionally patterns are added to colors on maps to indicate lithology. These are sort of general guidelines, but can vary. For my field camp as an undergrad, we mapped a metamorphic core complex with various thrust sheets in the footwall of the main detachment fault, and used shades of a certain color or set of colors within each major (fault-bounded) structural unit to make the sets of rocks between the major faults obviously distinct from one another on the map. Awickert (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The ICS chart is a great help. Following the links I see that there is an incomplete set of footer templates that use the same colour- and thus we can extract: a rgb number for some of the shades- that will translate into SVG. I do see a value to the group of publishing a page of SVG colour hints for Both age and lithology. I think a manual of style is within the remit of any group- and if there is no universal style for lithology- then be bold and establish a WP:Geology convention! It would be useful to define exactly the rgb, I have put some possibilities in a table.

Lithology

Igneous	rgb(240,64,60)
Alluvium	rgb(255,242,174)
Sedmentary	rgb(0,176,222)
Sedmentary	rgb(188,209,94)

Now in researching that lot, I have discovered that a lot of the work has been done there is a template{{Period color}} that translates geological names into colours though some of the terminology does't correspond to the ISC chart.

|jurassic=rgb(0,176,222)

|late jurassic|upper jurassic|hettangian|sinemurian|pliensbachian|toarcian=rgb(189,228,247)

|mid jurassic|middle jurassic|aalenian|bajocian|bathonian|callovian=rgb(132,207,232)

|early jurassic|lower jurassic|oxfordian|kimmeridgian|tithonian=rgb(0,176,227)

It would be trivia to write a similar template {{Lithology color}} when the colours had been agreed.

Is this line of thought worth developing?--ClemRutter (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Geologic map of the southwest of the UK

I have made large-scale geologic maps of southern England, Wales and northern France. They are available at commons. I'd like to cover the rest of western Europe too, but it takes a lot of time to make a map. There are many ways to make a geological map, but two extremes are purely on lithology and purely on age. Normally, geological maps are combinations of these two. I wouldn't recommend following the ICS geochronologic palette, for that reason. It is good to apply the general conventions (Jurassic = blue; Triassic = purple) but there is no reason to take the exact RGB's. In fact it is confusing, because it suggests an exact geochronologic meaning of a particular colour.

What I tried to do in my UK maps is apply darker colours for older and metamorphic rocks than for younger and sedimentary rocks (see expample ->). In this way, massifs and basins can be distinguished at first sight. When choosing a colour for sedimentary rocks, I took the normal colour for the age, then made it lighter or darker according to lithology. I use orange/red colours for igneous rocks and classify them in bins, depending on the main phases of activity in a region. Woodwalker (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New Snowball Earth period?

• First breath: Earth's billion-year struggle for oxygen New Scientist, #2746, 05 February 2010 by Nick Lane. Posits an earlier much longer snowball Earth period, c2.4 - c2.0 Gya, triggered by the Great Oxygenation Event.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridge-push, slab-pull

There is lots of taxonomy in the geology articles: descriptions of orogenies, rock types, and so forth. But articles like Seafloor spreading & Mantle plume are at a sixth grade level: rugs sliding off tables and other picturesque language. Isn't there any quantitative modeling on such topics out there that could be introduced, perhaps on other pages, say Seafloor spreading: Physics and mathematical models, that could give the geology in WP a less fairy-tale flavor?? Brews ohare (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So are you against the "picturesque language"? I'm in favour.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Picturesque language may aid the intuition, of course, but provides nothing to test whether the intuitive notions are up to the task of explanation. Is slab-pull really capable of predicting observed rates of movement? What elaborations are needed, for example, are phase changes necessary to explain the necessary pull? Is ridge-push really negligible, and is the theory of mantle plumes adequate to the task of calculating their influence? And so on. I believe some detail about the state of modeling would provide some confidence from the WP articles that geology is not about telling a good story, but about real, testable effects. Brews ohare (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why the articles can't give a good picturesque explanation and talk about testability. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Brews ohare (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Type locality

Just a reminder that type locality is a disambiguation page, and should not normally be linked to. For geological articles, the correct destination is type locality (geology). If anyone would like to help clear up the incorrect links, take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Type locality. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gardner's relation

Gardner's relation is an orphan. Please try to figure out which other articles should link to it and add the links.

(And also, it doesn't say who Gardner is. I'd expect it to start by saying Gardner's relation, named after ?????? Gardner, is etc. etc. etc.....".) Michael Hardy (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Very few ghits - but this paper [1] cites a 1974 paper "Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., and Gregory, A.R., 1974. Formation velocity and density - The diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophys., 39, 770-780." DuncanHill (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This [2] looks like the paper in Geophysics. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note this discussion is also going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes. I've already added the ref to the article, but now I can add a URL as well, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It now has links at:

1. P-wave
2. List of mathematics articles
3. Bulk density
4. Earthquake location
5. Petrophysics
6. Seismic velocity

What else could you suggest? --Bejnar (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

TFD for {{Infobox crater}}

I have nominated the newly-created {{Infobox crater}} for deletion. (I first asked the creator to withdraw it.) Please see and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox crater. Summary: editors including those from WPGeology have already worked to alleviate confusion over unqualified use of the term "crater". The mass category renaming CFD for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 22#Category:Craters renamed 77 categories like "Craters of..." to "Impact craters of..." after volcanic crater articles were moved to subcategories of Category:Volcanoes. The consensus is clear - let's not re-introduce that confusion. Ikluft (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not re-name it {{Infobox impact crater}} though most of the infobox characteristics of an impact crater, explosion crater and a volcanic crater are similar. --YakbutterT (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That discussion needs to be held in the TFD now in order to count toward the procedural resolution. Ikluft (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lithology

Until I changed it to a disambig page recently, lithology redirected to petrology, and the petrology article mentions lithology as an old name for it and as a subclass of petrology. The usage I'd always had for lithology was the composition/texture/features/character/etc. of a particular rock unit. The subdivision within petrology quoted on the petrology page sort of echoes this, except stating it as a field of study (if it is, I'm unfamiliar with it).

So the question: should I create a separate page for "lithology", in which I write about characters of different rocks? Or is my definition of lithology a non-universal one? Awickert (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, lithology is used exactly as you describe it, a summation of the characteristics of a rock unit, e.g. a medium-bedded, well-cemented, coarse-grained sandstone. I found this web-page on digital mapping from the USGS - a bit confusing, but I think that it's saying the same thing. Mikenorton (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK - since no one else has responded, I think I will go ahead and make an article at some point. Awickert (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for craters

Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Infobox for craters. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

30,000 images of minerals donated

(taken from Signpost; written by Phoebe and HaeB)

• File:Baddeleyite-37769.jpg
• File:Silver-Acanthite-291317.jpg
• 
• 

U.S. mineral collector Dr. Robert Lavinsky has released almost 30,000 photos of mineral specimens under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, which will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons soon. They consist of the (currently about 29,000) images from Lavinsky's picture database on mindat.org, and of the images from his own homepage irocks.com, the web site of his mineral business "The Arkenstone".

The donation came about after Dr. Lavinsky had been contacted by German Wikipedian and Commons user Ra'ike for permission to use a small number of these photos. According to his biography on minrec.org, "The Arkenstone" was one of the first mineral businesses to move onto the Internet in 1996, and Dr. Lavinsky gave academic lectures on the "Impact of the Internet on the Mineral Hobby" in 2006 and 2007.

---

Help is needed in translating the image descriptions. Also, images from irock.com need to be screened and any misssing pictures uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Robert Lavinsky for more info. --Yarnalgo _talk to me 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Help disambiguating a fossil

In the article 1976 in paleontology there is a link to Georgia, as a new plesiosaur discovered that year. I can't see anything on the disambiguation page which fits - but could it be Georgiasaurus? DuncanHill (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Georgiasaurus penzensis is the correct plesieosaur genus, it was renamed from Georgia penzensis by Otschev in 1977.--Kevmin (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

display globe in Infobox crater data

In response to a request at Template talk:Infobox Mercury crater, I'd like to change Template:Infobox crater data to display the globe parameter (if supplied). This should help make clear which planet, dwarf planet, or natural satellite the crater is located on, in case it's not clear from the context. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you envisage that rendering? Could you make a mock-up? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox crater data/testcases. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. I support your proposal. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait a day or two more, in case others have comments. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Methane chimney

I just made the article. I'm not a scientist, so I don't quite know what I'm writing about. I could really use a bit of help on it, if you have time. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking a short break, so I won't be able to help much right now, but the article should probably also include 'gas chimneys' which are similar, but related to the migration of both biogenic gas (from breakdown of organic material by microbes at shallow burial depths) and thermogenic gas (from the cracking of kerogens in source rocks at depth) through sediments towards the surface. I'll try to find some time today to take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a bit on gas chimneys. I think that it sits better in this article rather than any separate one, as the two subjects clearly overlap. I'll give it some more thought when I'm back online. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing geology topics

I've updated my list of missing geology topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Geologist article review request

One of the articles tagged within the scope of this WikiProject is being reviewed at the moment. I'm leaving a note here to ask whether anyone active in this WikiProject has time to review the article (David A. Johnston) and leave suggestions, either on the article talk page or at the review. As one of the contributors to the article, I will say at the review that I've left this notice here, but if you do leave comments at the review it would be helpful to those assessing the review if you leave a note saying how you became aware of the article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Image:SnowballGeography.gif

FYI, File:SnowballGeography.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

DNAPL name

I noticed that DNAPL was within this WP. Does anyone think that the page name should be dense non-aqueous phase liquid instead? As of now, the full name is a redirect. Light non-aqueous phase liquid is currently the full name for that page, rather than LNAPL. Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

William P. Blake, geologist

Please see Talk:William Phipps Blake; and confirm or refute my assumption about him being how voyaged up the Stikine River with the Russian lieutenant Pereleshin in 1863.Skookum1 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain now, see Talk:Mount Pereleshin on more about him in regard to this.Skookum1 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

stub templates

FYI, the image for Template:Crater-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was recently changed, and the image was enlarged to make it take up alot of room (does not play well when there are multiple stub templates on an article)

See the discussion on the talk page {{crater-stub}} (talk) if you have an opinion on the issue.

70.29.210.155 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Poke

Hey there ladies and gents, I had a question on the reference desk that perhaps someone stalking this page might know the answer to. It can be found at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#TDS. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Have a great day. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture for "Did you know"?

Two kutnohorite crystal clusters from the Wessels Mine, Kalahari manganese fields, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. Size 6.2 x 6.1 x 3.8 cm.

I'm not really familiar with that feature, but would propose this new Commons photo, which is just plain amazing: Enjoy, Pete Tillman 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Pete, all it needs is for someone to 5x expand the current kutnohorite article and propose it at DYK, with picture included :). I have no idea if that is feasible. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there probably is enough information on google scholar and elsewhere, note though that the spelling 'kutnahorite' is more common. Mikenorton (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the expansion and nomination have to take place within five days of starting. Maybe an easier option might be to start an article on the Kalahari manganese fields; then you'd just need to produce 1500 characters of prose within the time limit. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Now I recall why I've never done one of these.

Actually, the Wessels Mine might be worth a shot: see Commonscat:Wessels Mine. Amazing stuff. A gallery of "Wessels Greatest Hits" would, well, rock ... Cheers, Pete Tillman 18:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC Alert

An RFC has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group which could affect the article Geology of the Falkland Islands. The promoter of the RFC has already been involved in an edit war in that article where he has been promoting a particlar WP:POV. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I should like to strongly protest your campaigning messages in violation of WP:CANVASS. Pfainuk talk 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Shale and oil shale

There is a discussion if all oil shales are shales or not. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR listing for Plate tectonics

Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

What does Plate tectonics need to get a good article status? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Plate tectonics

An overview of the North American West coast of the last 110 Ma would be helpful. I'm thinking with Hawaiian-Emperor Bend (41-43 Ma), Pacific Plate rotation (100-110 Ma), Yellowstone hotspot trail and New England hotspot trail. Does anybody know a source for this? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar design

Over the last two days, there's been a discussion going on concerning the design of a geology barnstar. There are currently three possible star images on Template talk:The Geology Barnstar, and anyone who wants to voice an opinion (it is your project) is welcome.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The barnstar has now been created.

{{subst:The Geology Barnstar|message ~~~~}}

		The Geology Barnstar
		message Quinxorin (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GeoWhen database

The GeoWhen database no longer seems functional, e.g. this link for the Maastrichtian, nor can I currently get on to the ICS homepage [3]. Does anyone happen to know what's going on? There are a lot of pages that link to one or both of these. Mikenorton (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If I remember it right, sometimes the link International Stratigraphic Chart is down. Maybe I used a mirror site. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

I'm trying to write a timeline of the Earth Sciences revolution (Timeline of the Earth Sciences). It's strange:

• The Wilson Cycle is called Supercontinent cycle, the Wilson Cycle is only a redirect.
• The Great Global Rift doesn't have a wikilink, but the Mid-Atlantic Ridge has an article, although it's only a part of the Great Global Rift.
• The Vine–Matthews–Morley hypothesis is called Morley-Vine-Matthews hypothesis.

Any comment? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Wilson cycle" and "supercontinent cycle" are synonyms; I think that the former is more commonly used, but that the latter is more self-explanatory. No opinion.

Never heard of the "Great Global Rift"; the rifts do not connect, so I don't understand it intuitively. The MAR is an important spreading center, and should have an article. From Google, it seems that the MAR and Great Global Rift could be synonyms... but you don't think so...

Awickert (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I read that the rifts connect (File:Plate tectonics map.gif) and I read many times Wilson Cycle, never supercontinent cycle though. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I used the wrong word. I mean that there are termini of ridges; they are non-continuous. But I suppose it doesn't matter; if the term is used (whether or not I know it), then you can feel free to make an article.

If "Wilson cycle" turns out to be more commonly used in your research, feel free to change that redirect. Awickert (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: the Great Global Rift, see Mid-ocean ridge (I just made the redirect). Vsmith (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx. I didn't remember that one. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the redirect useful, if there is no mention of it in the article? I think it needs to be added or needs to be created separately. Personally, I like Supercontinent Cycle, more than Wilson Cycle. It is more descriptive and more comprehensive as I remember it (and most net links seem to indicate). QFL 24-7 ^{bla bla bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics} 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your link goes to Wilson Cycle... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think, even with those links, the page is better titled Supercontinent with the redirect from Wilson, just more official sounding. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought Great Global Rift was a term for a massive rift that includes most of the mid-ocean ridges and other rift-related features in the oceans. From looking at File:World Distribution of Mid-Oceanic Ridges.gif, it is clear the Southeast Indian, Pacific-Antarctic, East Pacific, Central Indian, Southwest Indian and Mid-Atlatic ridges are all connected to form a single massive rift. Volcanoguy 03:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is correct english: Slab-pull or slab pull? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When used as a noun, "slab pull". When used as an adjective, "slab-pull". Plazak (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx. So, leave it: Ridge-push & Slab pull? Or moved it to Ridge-push force & Slab-pull force? Or moved it to Ridge push & Slab pull? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Black metals

I have created a short stub, Black metal (mineralogy). It may be original research or original synthesis, but I felt that this page was needed to convey that there are so-called black metals out there, in the real world. When I started I only new about black gold, but a random search on the names of a few other metals yielded immediate results. I don't expect the three substances I have found so far to be the end of this list (it could of course be "the end of this list" if the page gets deleted, granted) so I am pleading with more experienced editors in this field to assist in making this a viable article, if at all possible. Currently it resembles a disambiguation page, however, it falls outside that scope since the linked terms are hyponyms and not the same as the article name. __meco (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the Talk Page. However, I don't understand why this should be an article. Is "Black metals" a term you made up? The link to Black gold goes to artificially colored gold. The links to Black silver and Black copper go to specific black-colored minerals. Unless you can find references that use the term "black metals," to refer to various naturally ocurring minerals, I would vote to delete this article. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems a simple example of WP:OR. No references provided. Various copper and silver minerals are black - not just those redirected to. Without significant external refs it should be deleted. Vsmith (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the alleged WP:OR violation as no new ideas are being added. The black metals article just lists metals that are black. It could use sources, though. Abyssal (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The article creator stated (above) "may be OR..." and it was created apparently by searching wiki articles for "black metal". Two of the three examples aren't metals - just metal bearing minerals whose Wiki descriptions contain "black metal". One - melaconite is just an old name for tenorite. There are a large number of black minerals which contain one or more metals - but what is significant about that. And the only metal listed, black gold, is gold made black or dark by various alloys or "artificial" methods. Vsmith (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Volcanoes

Portal:Volcanoes is on featured portal nom. ResMar 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Silverpit crater for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Participants

Why is there such a large gap between the banner and the table of users? I was quite confused by this at first. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems someone had inserted a "clear all" following the Wikiproject navbox on the left which made the list/table of users shift way down. I've removed that - the result makes a narrower table with whitespace on the far right, but eliminates the big empty space before the table. Hopefully it is better now. Vsmith (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dakota Group

Proposed to merge Dakota Sandstone and Dakota Formation under the name Dakota Group. First proposed at Talk:Dakota Formation#Merger in December 2009. Any comments? --Bejnar (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Commented there; do it! (Hope this isn't too stale.) Awickert (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland

Hi I've kicked off a debate about the notability of Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland. This article came to the attention of a rather arcane group of editors at WP:BISE (me amongst them) who debate at length the worthiness of various usages of the term British Isles. My personal view is that the article as it stands is not notable as it is not part of a geographic series of articles, nor is the subject matter of any particular note. But I'm not a geologist, so I thought it might be useful to ask this projects opinion, before taking to WP:AFD.

NW Europe Gravity Anomaly plot (2)by the International Gravitametric Bureau

This image seems to show that the Britain and Ireland anomalies are related to their position at the edge of the Continental Shelf.

I think this article actually provides a template for what the article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might - just might - come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the entire globe, if at all.

We'd appreciate any input you might have here.

Thanks Fmph (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken it to AFD. Contribute there if you wish. Fmph (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus was an overwhelming keep. It seems to be good content. If someone writes a good regional geology article, then it may be able to be incorporated into that... sometime in the unknown future. Awickert (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Grenville orogeny

Grenville orogeny, this article has been marked as needing immediate attention. It seems ok for me, may I delete the tag? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert, but on a very quick skim I see no emergency. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event

I just started the article, and am looking for an image of the boundary. The boundary means some noticeable level of sediment in the rock, right? I'm new to this. Is there an image containing this boundary that I could add to the article? I have no idea where to look. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You could try Wikimedia Commons (google for it), or looking around on the internet. If I get a chance, I will poke around as well. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To your other questions: yes, it is a level in sedimentary rock. There happens to be a good picture of a terrestrial outcrop, as well as some info, at the University of Wisconsin. You might want to ask them for permission to use it for the article. Awickert (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked on Commons, but struck out. The Wisconsin images look great. I am looking into permission. Thank you very much! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the "Cenomanian-Turonian extinction event" happened after, can it still be used as a synonym for "The Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event"? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "Cenomanian-Turonian anoxic event" happened in between, right? (1. Something went bang. 2. Oxygen vanished. 3. Animals had a rough 500,000 years.) So, is it a synonym? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You know more about this than I do :). I would trust your judgement and use it as a synonym. There are 8.6 million year error bars anyway. Awickert (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sarabauite

New stub article created could use some expert eyes. Mo ainm~Talk 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mya or Ma?

I think "Mya" is more helpful to the general reader to indicate "millions of years ago", even though I understand modern geophysical usage favors "Ma", and have changed a few uses from "Ma" to "Mya". Do others agree or disagree? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go to "Ma", it is almost standard. There are wikilink and wikitionary link. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but under the insane linking policy we can only link once per article.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Abreviations are explained only at its first appearance in the articles, this is standard. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I often double or triple-wikilink in long articles for clarity, and can't recall ever being reverted. So it's not a firm policyin practice (ime), and common-sense should be your guide.

For a general encyclopedia, I think "Mya" or "Mybp" are more transparent, and thus more appropriate. We aren't writing for specialists here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Ma. That is the standard usage. Abyssal (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it standard usage in popular articles? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia link to Ma is not really helpful for the general reader. There is too much text there which is not pertinent to this usage of the abbreviation. Nothing wrong with it, but the general reader doesn't need a discussion of those other topics. The Wiktionary entry only explains "Ma" as "million years", and it is not immediately obvious that it means "million years ago" or "before the present". I would suggest (1) spell it out "million years before the present (Ma)" or something similar, or (2) reword the site of the link to be more specific to explain this or (3) both. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When I use "Ma", I generally try to add a parenthetical comment or something similar to what TomS TDotO suggests above. As Pete Tillman says, it is best to use common sense for what the reader wants. The featured article folks can figure out the formatting if the article ever gets there. Awickert (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In my reading of the literature, all major sources, including the "official" time scale agree that a date in geologic time should be expressed as Ma (the age of the K-T Boundary is 65.5 Ma). This seems to be the majority opinion expressed above. The position of the IUGS is that Ma is appropriate for dates and amounts of time (The Cretaceous period lasted from 145.5 Ma to 65.5 Ma and thus lasted for 80 Ma). In A Geologic Time Scale 2004, Gradstein et al. (2004) express dates as Ma, and amounts of time as myr (The Cretaceous period lasted from 145.5 Ma to 65.5 Ma and thus lasted for 80 myr). I think that convention and precedent are important and that we should use one of these approaches, preferably the one used by the "official," international geologic time scale. Using qualifiers the first time the abbreviations are used in an article (as suggested by Awickert and TomS TDotO) would eliminate the ambiguity.Rygel, M.C. (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

After writing all that, I just discovered the link in Ma to GSA's webpage outlining the debate. It seems that everyone is happy with Ma as millions of years ago, the contentious part is about using Ma or Myr (or myr) be used for intervals of time. This, and the information listed above, also seems to indicate that there are problems with the certainty, tone, and "standardness" of the information in the Ma entry. Rygel, M.C. (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Geology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Geology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Roundness and roundness

A non-english speaking person made available a Russian Wikipedia article on " Roundness (geology)". I downloaded a workable translation. However, the syntax needs some work. If anyone is inclined to do some copy editing to smooth out the edges of this article please feel free. Also, there is an article, already on English Wikipedia entitled "Rounding (sediment)". Both of these appear to be about the same topic. I am wondering how would the Geology community here like to handle this. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Banda earthquake articles for deletion

Not the big one, or even the second biggest one, but some of the more recent ones. Should they be deleted, merged, what? --KMLP (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• 2009 Banda Sea earthquake Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Banda Sea earthquake
• 2005 Banda Sea earthquake Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Banda Sea earthquake

Capitalizations for shields and cratons

Some geology articles about shields or cratons have the word "shield" or "craton" capitalized. What is the standard, if any, and if none, can this be standardized? What about "formation," etc? Thanks for the input. --KMLP (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stratigraphic units that have been formally defined should have the rank capitalized (Cumberland Group, Catskill Formation, Duncannon Member, etc). The rank is not capitalized for informal units. Complete guidelines for capitalization of units are provided in the USGS Suggestions to Authors publication, specifically the stratigraphic nomenclature section. As for cratons and shields, I would suggest capitalization if you are referring to a specific, named example (North American Craton) and keeping it lowercase in all other instances (see first sentence of craton). This agrees with the USGS quidelines for geographic names.Rygel, M.C. (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So, standard capitalizations for formal units. However, I am talking about articles referring to specific shields and cratons, not the general articles on these topics. So, planning to expand and create a few more of these articles, should I move the ones not at caps? Again, just the specific cratons, shields and platforms articles. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you see both caps and not caps in the scientific literature. So I guess you're OK any which way. But I think I see "Shield" capitalized more than "craton", and a quick and dirty Google Scholar hunt is consistent with that. Awickert (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Lithology

After a prolonged gestation, a new article on Lithology has now been created, as a joint effort between myself and Awickert. Constructive comment and criticism are welcome. Mikenorton (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Added a bunch of pics, which are much needed on this page. Feel free to replace with better pics or format as needed. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 16:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, looks less naked now. Mikenorton (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

African Shield

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just grabbed the first ref I could find and slapped it on. I often hear about the "West African Shield" and the "South African Shield", so maybe someone more in-the-know could decide whether this should be moved to "Ethiopian Shield" to avoid confusion. Awickert (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The African craton geology is a problem on wikipedia, and it probably needs more than slapping a quick reference on one article. I don't think projects like cleaning up a bunch of old unreferenced articles on major topics under threat of deletion is going to improve the situation any. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I just don't know anything about it, so I'm afraid the band-aid is the only thing I can offer. Chris seems to have done some reading though.

File:Cratons West Gondwana.svg, I thought there are: West African craton, Kalahari craton (consists of the Kaapvaal, the Zimbabwe craton, the Limpopo belt, and the Namaqua Belt), Congo craton, Tanzania craton and some minor cratons. ??? African Shield (Ethiopian Shield) = Western Ethiopian Shield + Eastern Ethiopian Shield (Somali Plate) ??? Ethiopian Shield, East Sahara craton and Arabian-Nubian Plate seem to be different entities. Sao Luis cratonic fragment (Brazil) was part of the West African craton in Gondwana; Luis Alves cratonic fragment and Sao Francisco craton (Brazil) were part of the Congo craton in Gondwana.

Ref.: Li, Z. X.; Bogdanova, S. V.; Collins, A. S.; Davidson, A. (2008). "Assembly, configuration, and break-up history of Rodinia: A synthesis" (PDF). Precambrian Research. 160: 179–210. doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2007.04.021. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Great - should we try to categorize these somehow? Awickert (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well they are categorized as Geology of South America and Geology of Africa. See figure in page 2 in (Late Neoproterozoic rise and fall of the northern Arabian-Nubian shield: The role of lithospheric mantle delamination and subsequent thermal subsidence Avigad, Z Gvirtzman - Tectonophysics, 2009 - Elsevier PDF. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodinia is still not clear, are we sticking to this order until something better appears?

• South America
  • Amazonia craton
    • Guiana Shield
    • (Amazon river)
    • Amazonian shield
  • São Francisco craton
  • Rio Apas craton
  • Rio de la Plata Craton
  • Arequipa-Antofalla craton
  • São Luís cratonic fragment
  • Luís Alves cratonic fragment
• Africa
  • West African craton
  • East Saharan Meta-craton
  • Congo craton, central southern Africa
    • Bangweulu Block, Zambia
  • Tanzanian craton
  • Kalahari craton
    • Kaapvaal craton, South Africa (3.6 - 2.5 Ga)
    • Zimbabwe craton (3.5 Ga)
      • Sebakwe proto-craton
• Arabian Plate
  • Arabian-Nubian Shield
• --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm a space cadet: there is List of shields and cratons. Just didn't do my homework. I think that I'm going to recuse from offering further opinions until I start to know what I'm talking about. Awickert (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Awickert & Chris, the summary above is quite good. About Rodinia: Trond Torsvik wrote a good summary in Nature in 2003. The present figure in the article may be outdated. For the Gondwanan craton configurations, a wealth of information can be found in Proterozoic East Gondwana: Supercontinent Assembly and Breakup (Geol Soc London Spec Pub 206). Regards, Woodwalker_talk 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thx Woudloper :) Did u see Li, Z. X. et al. (2008) above? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Note:Plate tectonics

I made following changes: slab pull redirected to slab pull force, ridge-push redirected to ridge push force and slab suction force as a redirect to back-arc basin.

Rationale:

Based on:

Clinton P. Conrad, Susan Bilek, Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni (2004). "Great earthquakes and slab pull: interaction between seismic coupling and plate-slab coupling" (PDF). Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 218: 109–122. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00643-5.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Lallemand, S., A. Heuret, and D. Boutelier (2005). "On the relationships between slab dip, back-arc stress, upper plate absolute motion, and crustal nature in subduction zones" (PDF). Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems. 6: Q09006. doi:10.1029/2005GC000917.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

As I like consistency,

And as ridge push force is just a name, the ridge itself pushes nothing. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

New categories

Just to let you know that Category:Minerals by crystal system and its subcategories has been created, would be good to populate them! DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Got through page 26 to 213:

Schumann, Walter (1991). Mineralien aus aller Welt. BLV Bestimmungsbuch (2 ed.). p. 223. ISBN 3-405-14003-X.

Felspar and Tridymite crystalise in two lattice systems, the others I don't think so.

Some chemical formulas are a bit different, maybe I should make a table to show them all. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The ref. says: Arsenic (rhoboedral), Tellurium (prismatic), Bismuth (cubic), crystalise in the trigonal crystal system

Any help? (based on mindat.org, I made two changes) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There are 448 minerals there now, and three Category:Amorphous. Granite, Bauxite, Lapis lazuli, Odontolite are not included, for instance (they are a collection of many minerals). Some need an infobox, some need a formula update from mindat.org, there are more minerals listed on some mineral templates and on the pages themselves (Template:Titanium minerals, Template:Manganese minerals, Template:Jewellery, Template:Ores). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Some do not have even a page on mindat.org (Category:Vitreous rocks; Antimonite is a Italian synonym for Stibnite (1) but this is English Wikipedia). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rocks and mineral WikiProject talk page template

I'd like to tag all of the talk pages of rocks and minterals with the WikiProject Geology talk page banner, but I am considering that it might be useful to have them tagged with with the subproject which currently does not have a separate banner?

Discuss it there? --Kleopatra (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:titanium minerals

I removed Hibonite‎ from the Template:Titanium minerals, it does not contain Titanium on mindat.org. But it contains Titanium on Webmineral. Rationale: If the mineral is crystalline n u know its cell dimensions, u known its formula. The rest is impurity. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Note:Silicates

I rearranged and cleaned up the Category:Silicate minerals. The work was based on Silicate minerals, Mindat.org/Nickel-Strunz 10 ed (Class 09 - Silicates) and the articles themselves. If I remember it right, there was a carbide (Class 01 - Elements), a "Class 03 - Halogenides" and a "Class 06 - Borates" in the category. I moved the theory on cement to the parent directory Category:Silicates. I hope it is ok and I get no complains, cheers. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Classification of Minerals

And please, just if one editor still doesn't know it yet, "Class 04 - Oxides and Hydroxides" does not include:

• Class 05 - Carbonates and Nitrates
• Class 06 - Borates
• Class 07 - Sulfates, Selenates, Chromates, Molybdates, Wolframates, Niobates
• Class 08 - Phosphates, Arsenates, Polyvanadates
• Class 09 - Silicates, Germanates
• Class 10 - Organic Compounds
• I think that there is just no point to include all minerals containing Silicium in the Category:Silicate minerals, all minerals containing Halogens in the Category:Halide minerals and all minerals containing Oxygen in the Category:Oxide minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose to use the Category:Classification of Minerals as a mineral classification tree based on in part Mindat.org/Nickel-Strunz 10 ed. The idea is that a mineral appears only once in this categorization tree (exception, clay minerals group and medicinal clay):

• Class 01 - Elements: Metals and Alloys, Carbides, Silicides, Nitrides, Phosphides
  • Category:Carbide minerals
  • Category:Diamond - many subcategories
  • Category:Gold - many subcategories
  • Category:Phosphide minerals
• Class 02 - Sulfides, Sulfosalts, Sulfarsenates, Sulfantimonates
  • Category:Sulfosalt minerals
• Class 03 - Halogenides, Oxyhalides, Hydroxyhalides
• Class 04 - Oxides and Hydroxides, Vanadates, Arsenites, Antimonites, Bismuthites, Sulfites, Iodates
  • Category:Hydroxide minerals
  • Category:Spinel group
  • Category:Vanadate minerals
• Class 05 - Carbonates and Nitrates
  • Category:Nitrate minerals
• Class 06 - Borates
• Class 07 - Sulfates, Selenates, Chromates, Molybdates, Wolframates, Niobates
  • Category:Alunite group
• Class 08 - Phosphates, Arsenates, Polyvanadates
  • Category:Arsenate minerals
• Class 09 - Silicates, Germanates
  • Category:Phyllosilicates
    • Category:Clay minerals group
    • Category:Medicinal clay
    • Category:Mica group
    • Category:Serpentine group
  • Category:Inosilicates
    • Category:Pyroxene group
    • Category:Amphibole group
  • Category:Cyclosilicates
  • Category:Nesosilicates
    • Category:Garnet group
    • Category:Humite group
  • Category:Sorosilicates
    • Category:Epidote group
  • Category:Tectosilicates
    • Category:Quartz varieties
    • Category:Feldspar
    • Category:Feldspathoid
      • Category:Cancrinite group
    • Category:Zeolites
  • Category:Unclassified silicates
  • Category:Germanium minerals
• Class 10 - Organic Compounds
  • Category:Coal - many subcategories
  • Category:Oil shale - many subcategories
  • Category:Oxalate minerals
• --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• P.S.: and not all minerals containing a OH group should be in the Category:Hydroxide minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Students editing Geology articles

After the UT Austin - Mineralogy course editing some rare Mineral articles, we have some editing on Basin and Range Province and Rio Grande rift (Edit summary sample: "Undid revision 400750312 by 99.99.186.220 (talk) was not signed in, need edit credit for course assignment" [4]). I' m interested to know where students are editing Geology articles. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Found several new articles in category:Sedimentary structures (most of the articles in that cat) created by students from SUNY Potsdam. Check with user:Rygel, M.C.. Vsmith (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Students in my Sedimentary Geology class are working on expanding a few articles related to sedimentary rocks and structures. They wrote drafts hosted on a SUNY Potsdam-hosted wiki] and are in the process of integrating their content. Details about what I asked them to do can be found on the grading page and a list of topics is provided here. Although this might cause a bit of editing and formatting chaos, I am hopeful that it will be useful and improve content. Rygel, M.C. (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Love and approve of what you and your students are doing. As a sed person, you are filling in some much-needed holes in the sed realm. The biggest problem is pictures: so much of these new articles would be vastly improved with them. I will go through my files to try and help with that, and you should talk to/look at User:Wilson44691 who probably has the biggest and best geopic collection anywhere. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 19:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Unfortunately I have not gone over the final version of their articles yet, so I am seeing them for the first time with you and the rest of the world. User:Wilson44691's collection is fantastic and inspired me to try and get all of my teaching images on my Wikimedia commons user page. I have about 250 more to go, which might take me through the summer of 2011. Thanks again for the help with cleanup and formatting on the student pages! There are 31 students in the class, I am not sure how many will try and earn the extra credit for contributing to Wikipedia. The list provided below is a list of student-edited pages that I know about, I will try to update it daily. Rygel, M.C. (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Antidune
• Clastic rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygel, M.C. (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Cone-in-cone structures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtn620 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Cross-bedding
• Evaporite
• Hummocky cross-stratification
• Iron-rich sedimentary rocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygel, M.C. (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Liesegang rings (geology)
• Mudcrack
• Mudrock
• Raindrop impressions
• Sandstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygel, M.C. (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Sole markings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rygel, M.C. (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Stylolite
• Syneresis cracks
• Vegetation-induced sedimentary structures

Query on notability, advice sought.

I have found a large number of unsourced stub articles for North Wales faults, some of which are listed here. There is also a list. The creator of these stubs is now blocked as a sockpuppet and seems unlikely to be able to take them any further. Do we normally regard any fault as inherently notable, and if so, what sort of sources would be acceptable? Would we need individual articles as well as a list? Comments welcome. Rodhullandemu 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Looked at a few and those I looked at are substubs (one-liners) with no real content. So I'd say either redirect to the list or just delete 'em ... probably a redirect would be better. Any with more info could be kept if refs are provided. Vsmith (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look through them, and rescue those that I can (Carmel Head Thrust already done). The list articles themselves are really good and comprehensive, I hadn't seen them before. What a lot of articles to write, ah if only I had the time! Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data in order of increasing article count and it will take me some time to reach Wales. No rush. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A and B sections completed, the only faults left linked have either been expanded a bit, with refs and coords added, or will be soon - I'll try to get through the others during the next week. Mikenorton (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

C section complete - that's all of them I think. There's still a couple of linked faults in the B section that I need to expand and one in the C section that I can't even get approximate coordinates for. Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorization by discovery date

Many timeline category schemes exist on Wikipedia and new ones keep getting added. Would a category scheme, Category:Geological discoveries by year by a viable addition to the project? Skutterudite would then go into Category:1845 geological discoveries, alternatively Category:1840s geological discoveries (but I assume that should this category get started there would be sufficient items to populated annual categories certainly as far back as 1845). __meco (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't see that as needed, rather it would add clutter to the bottom of an article page. Maybe a list article of mineral discoveries by decade or whatever. But such a group of categories seems useless - except maybe to increase some users edit count. Better to actually add article content. Vsmith (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Would I be right in perceiving your opposition to say, Category:Establishments by year and Category:Introductions by year, in general, in that documenting chronologies is not an appropriate focus when building an encyclopedia? __meco (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The general discussion of Vsmith's category by year oppositions belongs on his/her talk page, or possibly at a village pump page, not on the WikiProject Geology talk page.

Lists of mineral discoveries by years might be appropriate, but tagging geology articles in these categories does not seem to be a means of enhancing the utility of the article. Is there some way you think it would advance the encyclopedia's mineral articles in general that I may be missing? --Kleopatra (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We get easily in a problem of "over categorisation" here. See discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 6 #Volcanic eruptions by year and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#Categories for years of eruptions. I prefer a solution like the Historical earthquakes, the List of 20th-century earthquakes and the List of 21st-century earthquakes overviews. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the sheer volume of geological discoveries would make a category scheme preferable to lists. __meco (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The List of 20th-century earthquakes gives an overview of notable earthquakes above Mw 6 ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And, although there are thousands of minerals, a list sorted by year of discovery might have utility. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. A discovery needs to be notable. A mineral needs not only to be discovered but IMA approved too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask what may be seen as a very naïve question by someone with a background in geology: are minerals the only class of discoveries that are relevant for a Category:Geological discoveries by year hierarchy? __meco (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but User:Kleopatra used it as an example. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but you used skutterudite as your example. I'd say the year of discovery for things such as minerals is rather a trivial matter and not worth even a list, but I could be wrong :) The really important "discoveries" in geology are the steps in the development of our understanding  ; things like plate tectonics. Those things sort of developed over decades ... so year of discovery??

And to answer your question from above, we don't "document chronologies" by grand category schemes. We document chronologies with encyclopedia articles. Categories are just aids for readers to find related information. So, a list article covering discoveries - maybe; a glob of categories created as part of a wrong headed goal - no. A more appropriate approach would be a timeline article which shows the development of the science via significant discoveries, concepts and theories. Do we have that article yet? Vsmith (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We have Category:History of earth science. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks - there I find Timeline of geology, wasn't aware of that before. Kinda brief and in need of some TLC :) And that highlights the purpose of categories: to find articles -- not to replace them. Vsmith (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

_and Timeline of the development of tectonophysics which is a bit more - fleshed out. And I was aware of that one :) Vsmith (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have posted a heads-up at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#What are categories not appropriate for? about the present discussion. __meco (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to "Category:Xs by year" as long as there is something notable about it. For example, Category:Albums by year it is useful because the time period is an important part of music and popular culture as a whole. But the year a mineral was discovered is not really category-worthy. A reader may be interested in reading about albums from 1966, but it is unlikely that a reader would only be interested in geology in 1843. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Any less notable than for instance Category:Species described in 1843? __meco (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A "bigger" species is identified easier, not all "discovered" minerals are recognised by the IMA. As I see it, u can't identify an unique cristalline mineral without analytics and X-Ray. James Dwight Dana, System of Mineralogy (1837), might be more a classification of mineral classes, groups, subgroups, series and families. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See other stuff exists. Using categories to group related minerals by a recognized and published classification scheme (as Chris is doing) is valid. Likewise categorization of animal/plant species by a recognized classification scheme is valid. Lumping unrelated items (minerals or plants) together by a "year of discovery" category serves no purpose. Sorta like the date linking fiasco - mostly trivial stuff. Mclay1 above makes a valid point re: pop culture - I can see someone wanting to know what music was popular in '66, maybe I'll check that out - that was during an extended time of "cultural disconnect" for me :). Vsmith (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the year of discovery of a living organism is interesting. But a discovery is only valid after it is accepted. A timeline that shows when Linnaeus classified organisms, or when Collembola, Diplura, Protura got separated from the insects, or when Humboldt and Darwin worked, is more interesting. Same with minerals, there are rocks, ores and other mixtures, and a mineral is only discovered if the IMA accepts it as valid. A timeline showing when some polymorphs got recognised as such is more interesting. Examples: Carbon Polymorph group (Diamond, Graphite, Lonsdaleite, Chaoite, Fullerite); or the Calcite (Trigonal) and the Aragonite (Orthorhombic); or the polymorphs of Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄, Halloysite, Kaolinite, Nacrite, Dickite and the suspicion that clay might be just impure Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Geology images that might be deleted

Hello everyone! There's a deletion request at Commons for over 80 files, many of them on the subject of geology. These were thought to be under the copyright of NASA because they were all taken from a remote sensing tutorial on one of NASA's sites. Later it turned out that the author copied many of the files without noting the sources and many of them might not be free. Now we need to find the original sources, otherwise they will be deleted. Many of these files are extensively used in different Wikipedias, and rescuing them will save everyone a lot of headaches and red links.

The deletion request is here

We've already started checking them but we may not know where to find sources for everthing. Please have a look, you might find something in articles you're working on, that you need to upload locally or find an alternative for, or hopefully find the original free source. Best regards,-- Orionist ★ talk 10:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Extinction event#Physical geologic driver

The section Extinction event#Physical geologic driver is in need of attention. Has WP:jargon and possible WP:SYN problems. Vsmith (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Expert view

Matlockite is going as a "Did You Know" to main page. Its a "start" at present. I've guessed the importance as it gives its name to the "Matlockite Group". All help welcomed as current authors need help with the geology nomenclature (aka jargon) Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Matlockite is extremely rare, it's a secondary mineral in cavities in decomposed galena. The IMA-CNMNC grouping is based on minerals with similar crystal-chemical behaviour, the mineral/group importance doesn't matter (Classification of minerals - Non silicates/ Strunz classification). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge mountain formation into orogeny?

I propose merging mountain formation into orogeny. There's good material in both, and they seem to complement each other. Orogeny is more technical, yet is the more visited page.

We had a discussion about this a year ago. Since then, the articles have stabilized. Given the current contents of the articles, what do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems ok for me. Mountain formation is rather thin, do not see the need of two articles with the "same" title. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. "Orogeny" is the formation of mountain ranges by intense upward displacement of the earth's crust, usually associated with folding, thrust faulting, and other compressional processes. Mountains formed by volcanic activity and erosional processes are not products of orogeny. Volcanoguy 13:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Then Orogeny is a section of mountain formation... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The term orogeny is no longer solely associated with collisional belts, the terms 'strike-slip orogen' and 'extensional orogen' are both in use. Mountains are formed by a variety of processes, including volcanic ones that cannot be termed 'orogenic' in any meaningful sense. Similarly, mountains (such as those in Scandinavia and the margins of Greenland) owe their current form to a combination of uplift (possibly plume-related but no-one is really sure except that it is not orogenic) combined with the isostatic effects of glacial loading - the fact that any of them match the location of older orogenic belts is mainly coincidental. I am well aware that the term 'orogeny' meant 'mountain formation' originally, but I think that it is now used to cover a much wider range of phenomena than that. Mikenorton (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Mike and Volcanoguy: they are separate. Orogeny should stay its own article, though, because it involves deep-earth processes that are beyond the narrowly-defined scope of developing topographic relief. Awickert (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Flood Geology

I am appalled that despite an apparent consensus against it on the talk page, Flood Geology is a part of this project. Flood geology is pseudo science and has no place here.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree and removed. Vsmith (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this. It is still in the projects scope. Arlen22 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A tsunami by the Toba catastrophe theory wouldn't leave the hard facts needed, it's gray not pseudo... ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Flood geology is an article on the pseudo-science promulgated for non-scientific reasons. Despite the name, it's not a proper field of geology, and the article is not about geology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Allow me to point out ArbCom-Pseudoscience Principle 18. This means it isn't pseudoscience. Arlen22 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It is pseudoscience and has no place in this wikiproject. DuncanHill (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Read that ArbCom in full. At least ArbCom-Pseudoscience Principle 15-18 Arlen22 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have. "Flood geology" would qualify as pseudoscience under principle 16 "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Flood Geology has no substantive "following within the scientific community". It is best characterised as "Generally considered pseudoscience"/"Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They certainly do have a following. This falls under Principle 18. Arlen22 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in the 'scientific community' as Principle 18 requires. Mikenorton (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. They have a following among evangelical Christians, but none in the scientific community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, scientists who believe this way aren't really scientists? Arlen22 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first and won't be the last to attempt any means possible of using wikipedia geology articles to promote religion. Please take this to one of the wikipedia religion projects. This isn't a sudden revelation on your part, oh, wait, we can tag any pseudoscience that argues against geological sciences as belonging to wikiproject geology. No, it doesn't. This "conversation" should probably be archived, as this page is for discussing wikiproject geology tasks, articles, and happenings. Pseudoscience has its own corners to play in. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, flood geology is a pseudoscientific topic, not a scientific one. However our flood geology article does contain a substantial section on geological findings, which shows how these contradict ideas from flood geology. I think the article can thus be seen as within the scope of this project. Similarly pseudoarchaeology is covered by WP:WikiProject Archaeology, and Pele (deity) is covered by WP:WikiProject Volcanoes. --Avenue (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost every location article in wikipedia would benefit from a section about geology, but not every one should be in the project. I do see your arguments. Can we create a Geology:pseudoscience watch subsection banner to make it clear that these are articles where geology project members monitor and include the science that counteracts the claims? That might be a useful watchlist for the project.

We have to be careful about this, though. There's not a grain of sand that some pseudoscience quack won't turn into a mountain of "evidence" to support their personal doubts in their faith, and we can either write geology articles, or argue personal issues of faith with pseudoscientists. We can't win at the latter, as faith is about faith, and science about science. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize the hazards raised above. I think that the geology community and WikiProject Geology should sever all ties to Flood Geology. Any ties, links, or input by project members will be used against the scientific community. It is best to just ignore it. Our involvement with this topic would be like the biologists getting involved with Intelligent design. --Rygel, M.C. (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. While I still think the benefits of a few even-tempered geologists keeping an eye on the flood geology article outweigh the dangers (and I hope some will), I don't feel that strongly about it being explicitly covered by this project. --Avenue (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with reaching the consensus that the project should not put a banner/sub-banner there for the reasons stated by Rygel and others, as I admit this is true in my own post: pseudoscience quacks will twist it to approval. They have expertise at twisting, since they have no facts. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nickel-Strunz Code

I'm going to add the Nickel-Strunz Code in the mineral infoboxes:

• Strunz Mineral Class. Mineral Division (letter) Mineral Family (letter). Mineral/ Group Number (Identity) (Nickel-Strunz (10 ed, pending publication))

In order to avoid possible copyright problems, to make my the editing easier and to avoid the need of updates soon; I thought that it'd be better not to add the end number (mineral/ group identity). Or should I add the whole code? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Several articles already have the codes for Strunz and Dana systems -- the fields were added to the infobox back in 2008. Do they need updating w/ 10th ed data? Don't see codes in individual mineral infoboxes as a problem as referenced to either Mindat or Webmin data pages. Vsmith (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, consistency needs all Strunz codes from the same ed (10th ed). Maybe u r right, Dana is copyright protected and the Nickel-Strunz code isn't. IMA-CNMNC's list gives the Strunz Mineral Class, Mineral Division and Mineral Family too. Athena, MinMax, Mineralien Atlas, Mindat.org, Webmineral.com use the Nickel-Strunz Classification. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Somerset Levels

I have been advised to ask for help here with the Somerset levels article which I hope to take to FAC fairly soon. In particular the dating of peat formation might need to be supported with a more academic/reliable source, but any other help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 13:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI re: Young-earth creationist website's value as a source

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Answers in Genesis" as a source. Geological eyes might be of benefit. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mapping software

I've been starting to use a Python mapping tool called "Basemap" a lot in my work. It's pretty quick and makes very professional-looking maps. It's also open-source and free, which is good for us. When you download it, it comes with a number of example codes that are pretty easy to modify, and Google produces helpful results if you're stuck. Since it's written in a programming language, it's easy to whip up new maps in a hurry once you have a good template made (just change a line or two), which is what I think would be helpful for using it for multiple geology articles on WP.

Thought I'd drop a note about this; after I get out from under the next few months of work, I plan to use it to project maps and images of geological localities, geophysical data, etc. But until then, if you're interested, you should check it out!

• User's guide: has instructions for downloading and using it
• You need to have Python 2.[X≥4] installed (I'm running it with Python 2.6.6), numpy, and matplotlib; they're also free downloads (see the Basemap install page for their list of what you need).

Awickert (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Guarda Crater

Is Guarda Crater a confirmed crater? The article is both cited in List of impact craters on Earth and List of impact craters in Europe but google shows a single result from Harvard citing the crater as 'possible'. Should the article be removed? 85.50.100.244 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

All I can find is a LPSC abstract saying that it is "possible". I'm going to add this to the article. Not sure how maybes work with categories; I'd think it should probably stick around in them. Awickert (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Test

I'm making a draft on Identification of Minerals on six sortable tables, it's based on: BLV Bestimmungsbuch, Mineralien aus aller Welt, Walter Schumann, 1991. There is a search function on Mindat.org, but it has no density, and streak is missing sometimes. There is the webmineral mineral search function, and there is the MINERAL IDENTIFICATION KEY II by Alan Plante, Donald Peck & David Von Bargen too. I want to use minerals found in at least 100 locations (Mindat.org) and with at least a picture available on commons; or minerals found in at least ten locations (Mindat.org) and with at least three pictures available on commons. Using only IMA/CNMNC valid minerals there would be less than 1,000 minerals distributed through 6 sortable tables. Of course, if it is a good idea ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge Geology and geophysics and Meteorology into "Earth Sciences & Meteorology"

I've proposed merging the "Geology and geophysics" section with the "Meteorology" section on the featured articles homepage, into one "Earth Sciences and Meteorology" section. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oligocene redirects needed

Please see my comment at Talk:Oligocene#Lower_and_Upper_Oligocene. Should be simple for somebody who actually knows a little about geology :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Vermont geology subtopic-"terraces"

21:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Need expert to comment on geologist at AFD

Peter Szatmari (geologist) has been nominated for deletion. Some sources have been found, but we need someone who knows Geology to comment on it. Is his study on evaporites in any textbooks? Dream Focus 21:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami has been requested to be renamed, see Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami . 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sperrylite - question on refdesk

There is a question about sperrylite on the refdesks, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Identifying sperrylite ore which members of this project may be able to help with. DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Martian geological eras

There is a question at Talk:Mars on whether the primary divisions of geologic time on Mars are called "period" or "epoch" 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Carbon giant

Carbon giant has been prodded for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

Once, I changed slab pull to slab pull force. The idea was that slab pull isn't really, really a title, it needs a noun (Do I remmenber it right ? Is it not "slab-pull" or "slab pull force" ?). I posted the idea here and no protests were heard. Awickert reverted it now (edit summary: More commonly referred to as just "slab suction" - and then "stress" or "traction" or "force" is added on as needed, depending on what is being discussed) ;)

We have now flat-slab subduction (needs refs.), in principle we have stubs enough, a section of subduction would have been a possibility too.

The consistency needs now ridge push force reverted to ridge push ;[

The wording has changed the last ten years, I'd better read an undergraduate course on tectonics (EarthByte group, University of Sydney) [5]

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, my copied edit summary was for my movement of slab suction force. I removed the "force" because of (1) the reasons given in the edit summary (we aren't always talking about a force when we are talking about tectonic drivers), and (2) this is how the terms generally appear in the academic / professional literature. They also generally appear non-hyphenated.

I am happy to move flat-slab subduction to a section of subduction. Or anyone can do it because it is WP. I saw that it was referred to on quite a few articles, so I created a stub, but I had no time to reference it (yet).

I disagree though with we have stubs enough. We should keep creating and organizing articles, and everything must start somewhere. I won't likely be creating a full-fledged article right away: I prefer to put a poorly-referenced set of stuff I know to be correct out there than to leave it to rot in my sandbox (users like Mikenorton do sandbox, but they are more efficient than I). Awickert (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough ;) If nobody protests, I'll ask Vsmith to move ridge push force back to ridge push. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. So long as it doesn't slip my memory, I will deal with flat-slab subduction before the end of the week. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ice XI

According to Ice article, Ice XI is found naturally occurring in Antarctica, yet, this form of ice does not have an article. It seems that it is a rather important form of ice, and should have an article, as the other three naturally occurring forms (on Earth) have articles (amorphous ice, Ice Ic, Ice Ih). 65.94.45.160 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Epoch of Extremal Inundations

I initially declined Epoch of Extremal Inundations at AfC because it included some claims about "human impact" that I could spot as being very WP:FRINGE. The submitter has toned them down now (to an uncontroversial discussion of its impact on upper pal lithic industries and a perfunctory mention of a relationship with deluge myths, which is nonsense, but not stated as fact so I guess it will do). The fact that it was there initially though makes me wonder about the accuracy and fringiness of the geology in the article, which I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to judge, so I was hoping someone here would be able to help out.   jroe ^tk_cb  15:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

--Andreygeo (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)I've added an information about history of investigation, geology and links.

I just came here to ask about this exact article. It really bugs me, and I'm not quite sure I can verbalize why. Anyone else have an opinion? DS (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geologic timescale

Does anyone remember Wikipedia:WikiProject Geologic timescale? It was supposed to have been merged with this one in 2007. I am sending it to Mfd. Please feel free to comment there. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 01:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Shale Gas / Poland

This section is a bit of a mess; Shale gas#Poland (as of now). Could someone take a look? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had an initial go, but in improving the language I'm aware that the original meaning was not always clear (particularly the bit involving the Trans European Fault) so more work is certainly needed - probably way too many sources for instance, I will try to find time to have a more thorough look, particularly regarding the basin definitions. Mikenorton (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It's really just something I stumbled across (looking up info re. the recent earthquake in Blackpool (UK), which was allegedly caused by fracking) - I noticed it was messy, but don't know enough about the subject to help much. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  08:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone please take a look at Geographic Chemistry.

I'm not even sure where to start (well, except that I deleted a quote from a professor who wanted to remain nameless - uh huh). Prod for OR? Redirect to... something? LadyofShalott 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Gone. DS (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A rather belated thanks! LadyofShalott 13:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

History of Mars

History of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nickel-Strunz

Is it ok to move Strunz classification to Nickel-Strunz classification, the same in the Template:Infobox mineral line? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Pennant Limestone?

Hi. I am currently assisting with getting Kennet and Avon Canal towards FA status and I have uncovered a geological conundrum that I hope one of your project members can help with.

According to a reference source we have, Bruce Tunnel has "red brick portals, capped with Bath stone, each with a decorative stone plaque of Bristol Pennant Limestone". Trying to solve this redlink, I discovered the article Pennant Sandstone in WP, and there were a couple of minor Google hits for pennant limestone elsewhere, but nothing I could link to. My fellow editors have failed to find anything other than the Sandstone.

So, can anyone shed any light on this? And what can we link to on-wiki? (Thanks, in anticipation) -- EdJogg (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be mentioned in the 1859 Memoirs of the Geological Survey on Archive.org linked here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of limestones within the Pennant Measures (or Series) in either the South Wales Coalfield or in the Bristol area - the sequence is dominantly coarse sandstone with subordinate shale and coal seams. Some of the very few google hits are clearly errors (see for example [6] in the section on Craig Gwladys), with limestone being written instead of sandstone, so perhaps this was an original mistake in the source. Mikenorton (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I checked in the Memoirs and discovered it was simply listed as 'Pennant', so I decided to Google "pennant stone" instead. Stacks of links. A helpful one, which to my mind trumps all the others, is from the English Heritage National Monuments Record Main Building Materials Thesaurus: "Pennant Stone: Hard, fine grained, blue/grey coloured sandstone. Quarried in South Wales and the Bristol area and commonly used, throughout the country, as a stone roofing material (stone slate)." I am therefore inclined to create a new redirect for Bristol Pennant stone, which avoids the problem. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki love

I reinstated User:CountryBot's edit at List of minerals P-R (complete), as I said. If u don't mind my asking, is it possible to have a positive evaluation, in order to average out some possible negative evaluations ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:JCW and geology

The JCW compilation updated a while ago. Here's the top-cited missing journals that are related to Earth & Atmospheric Sciences.

• AAPG Bulletin
• Acta Geologica Sinica
• Annals of Glaciology
• Antarctic Science
• Atmospheric Environment
• Bulletin of the American Geographical Society
• Bulletin of the Geological Society of America
• Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
• Chemical Geology
• Earth-Science Reviews
• Geological Journal
• Geological Society, London, Special Publications
• Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs
• Geologische Rundschau
• Global Biogeochemical Cycles
• Global and Planetary Change
• International Journal of Climatology
• Journal of African Earth Sciences
• Journal of the Geological Society
• Journal of Glaciology
• Journal of Structural Geology
• Limnology and Oceanography
• New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics
• Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London
• Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
• Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry

If you're interested to help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide has some guidance about how to write an article on journals. Any help you can give would be much appreciated by WP:JOURNALS. If some of these journals are irrelevant to the project, feel free to simply remove them from the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Calcareous

The article Calcareous.... is it proper to have an article named for an adjective instead of a noun? Wouldn't it be better to just name it as the noun form Calcareousness? Rich9100 (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Rich9100

Because the noun is so rare compared to the adjective I think it is fair enough to use the adjective. Perhaps calcareousity is the word! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The "article" is rather an unsourced hodge-podge and should be turned into a disambiguation page:

calcareous rock calcareous soil calcareous organism (calcareous sponge ...) calcareous lake ...

Hmm. there is some blue in that list! Vsmith (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well...on further looking, the first two blues are redirects back to calcareous. Ah well...Vsmith (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Help with a reference

I have a reference here that has been a great help with Jacobsville Sandstone. However, there is one section on the quarrying process that I am having trouble fully understanding. Pages 43-45 describe it, and one issue is that I cannot tell what is horizontal, what is vertical and the like. If someone could explain it, I would appreciate it, as geology and mining are not my primary areas of expertise. Chris857 (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can make out the 'bed' refers to the bedding plane at the base of the sandstone layer being quarried and that is nearly horizontal. The channels were vertical, the initial channels being created in a continuous sandstone layer to provide space in to which late blocks could be moved. Further large vertical channels were then cut to separate out very large blocks from which smaller blocks (the desired end product) were produced using wedging as described. I hope that's a help. Mikenorton (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, between you and looking at the pictures again, I think I got it. Chris857 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unclear article

This article is linked to this project: Dominant group. To me, not an expert, it seems to be a bit unclear. If this is an important concept it would be nice if the meaning was made more clear, besides being a group that dominates other groups. Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not at all sure that this a genuine encyclopaedic topic, it appears to just be about use of the word 'dominant'. 'Dominant group' turns up all over the place but then so does 'largest group' and it doesn't seem to have a particular meaning other than the obvious. I suspect that this and the other related group of articles should be listed at WP:AfD. Mikenorton (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it an elaborate hoax? I note a number of occurrences such as the dominant Group C car which appears to be something which dominates a group, rather than a dominant group. Pterre (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dominant group (petrology) fails WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:Primary and that's not considering the intro blather. Haven't looked at the rest of the family. Vsmith (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It feels like a dictionary definition for something which is dominant in field xx expanded far beyond its right to exist. Or, this author used this phrase in this field, ergo, Wikipedia article. I've also noticed a fair amount of repetition between articles, especially this line: "Regarding the term, dominant group, a dominant group need not be the numerical majority, though it often is" Chris857 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put a note on the talk page of the 'parent' article, asking for more evidence that this is an encyclopaedic topic and indicating my intent to take this to WP:AfD if this is not forthcoming. I've also added a link to this discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all thank you for your interest in the article Dominant group (petrology). While I'm certainly not expecting a positive review, may I request comments on Dominant group (Moon), the discussion page. I'm acting on your comments above regarding the use of the phrase 'dominant group' in petrology. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that Dominant group (petrology) is currently being considered for deletion here, and Dominant group (Moon) here. Mikenorton (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Future of Earth FAC

Future of Earth is up for featured article candidacy. Please add a review if you have an interest. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in plate tectonics

Hi WikiProject Geology members! The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is working with a class for the upcoming term on plate tectonics, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, please let me know. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Volunteering seems to be taking place at Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors#Interest list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! My name is Belugaboy of the Wikipedia Signpost's WikiProject report, and you've been specially selected to be featured in a report! Contact me on my talk page if you are or know any of the most active members, even a founding member or two, which would be very helpful. Thank you for your time, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

PS: I also need to know when the project was founded, and how many FAs and GAs the project has. Thanks! Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 12:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really involved, but there are 22 FAs, 2 A-class, and 34 GAs. Chris857 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cancelled Sorry, it's been cancelled and promptly replaced. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 01:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Transitional fossil and ID-pushers

Some determined ID-POV pushing going on at Transitional fossil and on its talk page. Could do with eyes being kept on it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Afro-Eurasia-America

This new article Afro-Eurasia-America could stand a review by the geology folks. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in geology up for deletion

List of important publications in geology has been nominated for deletion, with the implicit argument that such a list is original research; the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology.  --Lambiam 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Holocene epoch

Hi, I'm cleaning up a load of templates relating to human prehistory. Someone seems to have got in a muddle over environmental vs cultural period terminology and this navbox for the Holocene contains an assortment of archaeological periods! I will fix it as best I can but it may be better for someone with a quaternary science background to polish it up and find good articles for it to live on! Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

asthenoshere intrusion of lithoshere due to hotspot scaring

Over the course of millions of years, the lithoshere travels over hotspots, resulting in volcano chains such as Hawaii, or evidenced in geological records of past volcanic eruptions, as in the case of the Yellowstone Calderas. Theoretically, there should be a scar on the bottom of the lithoshere which has been carved by the magma chamber over millions of years. The Lithoshere above the scar would be significantly thiner, and would be structurally weaker than other areas. It would most likely contain numerous faults and stress fractures. It seems likely that the plastic athenoshere would intrude into the scar. It seems possible that the intrusion could form a kind of tail behind the lava chamber. This tail would probably cool at shallower depths in the mid lithoshere, but remain plastic in the lower lithoshere. It also seems possible that this tail may also occasionally reconnect to the magma chamber, when seismic activity near the caldera opens new faults or fractures in the magma chamber walls. This may result in relatively short term bulging of the caldera, such as was recorded in Yellowstone in recent years (~2003 to 2008) As the outer magma chamber cools after a breach, the inflow of magma may be stopped, and the magma chamber will appear to stabilize. However, millions of tons of magma may have nearly filled the chamber, and could be an indicator of an eruption in the near future. I'm not a geologist, and am not qualified to add or edit wikipedia in regards to this hypothesis, however, in light of the potential threat to the United States that an eruption of the Yellowstone Super Volcano poses, I think it would be a good idea to add more information on this subject. I hope this post will generate an interest in more qualified individuals to address my concerns. Best regards.--Cvs1068 (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The base of the lithosphere is more or less defined as the 1400 °C isotherm, so after the plume has passed it's shape will recover - although there will also be related subsidence. The material that makes up the asthenosphere is thought to be chemically identical to that in the overlying mantle lithosphere and the temperature affects its rheology. Mikenorton (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Yellowstone caldera was researched and mapped recently by a working group around Robert B Smith, founded by the National Science Foundation. Personally, I think a big San Francisco earthquake could "possibly" hurt the magma chamber, for instance; on its own, Yellowstone seems to be "quite" stable (well, our lifetime is "short" on geological terms). All poses a threat in the USA, Yellowstone magma chamber, San Francisco earthquake, New Madrid earthquake, the weather and the "human factor".

• Smith, Robert B. (20 November 2009). "Geodynamics of the Yellowstone hotspot and mantle plume: Seismic and GPS imaging, kinematics and mantle flow" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 26–56. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.020. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• DeNosaquo, Katrina R.; Smith, Robert B.; Lowry, Anthony R. (20 November 2009). "Density and lithospheric strength models of the Yellowstone-Snake River Plain volcanic system from gravity and heat flow data" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 108–127. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.006.
• Farrell, Jamie; Husen, Stephan; Smith, Robert B. (20 November 2009). "Earthquake swarm and b-value characterization of the Yellowstone volcano-tectonic system" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 260–276. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.008.
• White, Bonnie J. Pickering (20 November 2009). "Seismicity and earthquake hazard analysis of the Teton-Yellowstone region, Wyoming" (PDF). Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 188 (1–3): 277–296. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2009.08.015. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I have two category issues. One is the category:Archaean when the main article is spelled Archean. Only one spelling would be correct, so which one is it? The International Chronostratigraphic Chart says Archean. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we normally go with the ICC on these things and there is a small preference shown for Archean over Archaean in Google Books & Scholar searches. So we should change the category name it seems. Mikenorton (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

New category created and old one depopulated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Second is that the category:continents which is a subcategory of category:Plate tectonics. This puts every country and most biographies in the the geology category tree, which seems inappropriate to me. Instead I propose putting only category:Geology by continent into the plate tectonics category and taking out continents. Some other subcategories of continents may also be relevant to plate tectonics too so these should not be ruled out. What do people here think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds an eminently sensible suggestion, continents are more geography than geology. Mikenorton (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made the change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Planetology

Do you guys also cover planetology and astrogeology ? (aside from bannering them, do people here participate in those kind of discussions on wikipedia articles in those areas) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Article statistics table

The Article statistics table is a mess: total articles=0; total unassessed=-800. I think the source of the problem is that it doesn't allow WP 1.0 bot to update it. Why not just let the bot do the work? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I made the table automatic. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Now it's worth checking through some of these. Mikenorton (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future

is currently undergoing FLC here. As this really needs reviewers I was hoping a member of this Wikiproject might be able to offer their opinion. Serendi^podous 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Paulscherrerite

Paulscherrerite is a new article that needs a review. Safiel (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

After a brief look through this and comparison with the mindat page on the mineral I would say that it looks OK. I'll try to give it a more detailed review tomorrow or the day after. Mikenorton (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Prism (geology)

Prism (geology) could use some expert help to source, check and expand it. Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

I need some expert opinions on Hawaii hotspot—see Wikipedia:Peer review/Hawaii hotspot/archive2. Thanks! ResMar 05:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kettle lake

I noticed a talk page comment by an IP editor and just wanted to bring it to this WikiProject for review: please see Talk:Kettle (landform)#Fish Lake is probably not a kettle lake. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Geological time

The articles and templates on en.wiki have geochronological units and chronostratigraphic units completely mixed up. There is a geochron template that divides a period into the rocks of the erathem, for example. The template should be removed from all articles. I chastised an editor for creating stubs with the wrong terms for period/eras/ages, but how can she get it correct if she's using en.wiki for the information? Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please put in a link to the template, there are too many. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Quaternary, I reworded the top line for consistency with the content. Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is now consistent within the template, but the template is used in articles to describe the Quaternary Period, not the rocks of the Quaternary System. This is why I didn't change it, too much work.

The Holocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Period links to articles about Holocene subdivisions called, periods instead of ages, and these are referenced to these wikipedia articles all over the place. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

• Wikipedia:Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
• Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Replace "Other articles" subsection

A lot of the content of the "7.3 Other articles" section on the main WikiProject Geology page really belongs on this talk page. Much of it is old and no longer applicable. I suggest replacing it with a new subsection "7.3 Requested articles" and putting in a note at the beginning of the "7. Articles in need of work" section saying: Articles most in need of attention are rated Low on the project assessment page. Please list suggested improvements for a specific article on its own talk page. Requests for help with an article should be placed on this project's talk page. The existing "7.3 Other articles" material can be placed here on the talk page and eventually be archived. Comments requested. --Bejnar (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I too have been thinking something needs to be done about this section. It is so bloated and there is no mechanism for retiring tasks. Definitely most article requests should be made on the talk page. Also, the {{todo}} template in Open tasks and guidelines could be replaced by a {{tasks}} template, which already has entries for FA and GA candidates as well as most of the other tasks people are requesting. One point about your suggestion: Low refers to the importance, which would indicate it's not a high priority. We should concentrate on high- or top-importance articles that are rated "stub" or "start". RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RockMagnetist is correct, it is really the Top and High importance articles that are rated stub, start and C quality that need the work. There are 188 of them today by my count, from Geochemistry to Subduction, including Rock cycle Pangaea and Rocky Mountains. --Bejnar (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Other articles needing work - old

Here is the discussion of other articles needing work that accumulated on the Project page. It is placed here for review, and will eventually be archived off this talk page. Much of this is no longer relevent as the articles have been edited. --Bejnar (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to tidy up the Project page. Hopefully it will now be easier to identify tasks. Nwhit (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The project page looks much better. Thanks, Bejnar! RockMagnetist (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Various forms of water ice should not be confused with Ice-nine, a fictional material appearing in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle, that freezes at 114.4F Wikidity (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But, can you be sure? :-) Geologist (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Vonnegut modeled Ice-nine after Daniel Carleton Gajdusek's description of the mechanism of the disease kuru (see [7]). — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Cyclic Salt is partially and superficially explained.
  Wikidity (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
• Geology of Japan - for such a geologically active country, I am very surprised that contains very little information. It's clearly in need of expansion. Ivolocy (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Forensic geology - this article has multiple issues but covers an interesting topic. I'm not a wikipedian, much less a member of WikiProject Geology, just thought I'd let the experts know about this article.--193.126.165.208 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Andean orogeny - this classical example of orogeny is lacking an article. All school/university kids go around crazy over the internet trying to find information about this, just to find references to non-free books, over-specific scientific articles and rather obscure university websites that try to catch the google searchs-let's give them a blow in the face! -- Dentren | ^Talk 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pages needing attention (Geology)
• Subduction currently okay, however structure of the article needs work. Also lacks information regarding theories of subduction initiation which strikes me as a neccessary addition. As stated on the talk page the current graphic is incorrect (even though it appears to be supplied by the USGS) I'm currently working on a replacement but its going to take a little more time (finals for the next 2 weeks) ClimberDave 10:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Palaeo-Tethys Ocean page. (Article at Tethys Ocean.) This page (?) is not neutral regarding the usage of the term Palaeo-Tethys (or Palaeotethys; see Robertson, 2004; Robertson et al., 2004) or its interpretation for tectonic reconstructions. I could potentially help with this. However, it is a bit of a contentious issue. 131.111.65.187 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm currently working on setting up a Geology of Cyprus article, this will hopefully then lead onto articles about Transform Faults, Obduction, Ophiolite and Messinian Salinity Crisis. Plus what ever else turns up. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 14:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see most of these have been set up already; I'll look at adding some images from my fieldwork there. MeanStreets "...Chorizo..." 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Transform fault exists as well, using the singular. Cheers Geologyguy 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Geoforecasting - appears to be a stub with the top-priority.

• Ring of Gullion AONB - some of my family live near by so I was having a read up, the article is a little weird I briefly spoke with Prof. G. Fitton about the structure a year or two back and from that I was lead to believe that the structure was simply an excellent example of a Ring Dyke resulting from Caldera collapse not "practically unique globally ..[sic]..when a collision of two massive plates may have dislodged into the earth’s mantle an enormous pluton that had intruded into the bottom of the crust at this point". The structure certainly isn't a compressional one but hopefully someone else may have a little more time or knowledge to figure it out. ClimberDave 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly sourced from this goverment website so maybe there is some truth in the article, http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/landscape/designated-areas/aonb/aonb_mourne/aonb_mourne_geology.htm ClimberDave 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Clay - The topic is deceptively simple, but the article is not, it is just simplistic. Drillerguy 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Effective Porosity I came across this article doing wikify work for Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify and I didn't even know where to begin here. The article is so jargony and rambling that I can't make heads or tails of it enough to help clean it up. It seems like a good topic, but I cannot pull enough information out of it to even write an effective lead section. Someone with some expertise in this area needs to do some serious work here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Cenozoic article does not do a good job addressing the controversies surrounding the causes of the late Cenozoic cooling trends.

• Geology of Lizard, Cornwall - article needs references, also expansion and some better exposition for the non-technical reader. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lias (group) - someone had used this title to write an article specifically about white lias. I've moved the article to White lias but that leaves the "group" page looking for an article to be written about the group. Can someone here do that? It could then be linked to Blue lias and White lias and a few geological articles which currently link to the lias disambiguation page could be redirected straight to the "group" article. The articles on white and blue lias could also do with (non-commercial) refs. Thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Timberframe (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Supercontinents - this article needs urgent attention because some of the definitions are wrong and the list of supercontinents is wrong. I have added some useful info in the discussion section of the article under 'List of Supercontinents and definition' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ear4rgjb (talk • contribs) 2009

I will work on this article. I have some notes from my work on the Rove Formation and Vaalbara; on my user pages I am working on the Algoman/Kenoran Orogeny and I just moved the Saganagan Orgeny to my user page because of conflicting information. Anyway, I do have some notes and I am interested. Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I did start by adding the information I had from my visit to libraries a couple of weeks ago. I was thinking the next logical step would be to list the supercontinents, and then saw there was a Wikipedia article "List of supercontinents", with a notice on top that no references are cited. The information I used was essentially for the supercontinent cyling process; there is an existing Wikipedia article " Supercontinent cyle" with a notice that it has no inline citations. All three of these articles need work. I believe that all three should be combined. If no one objects by next Saturday (3/27/10) I will go ahead to integrate the three into one article "Supercontinents". I probably will omit SOME of the material on 'Effect on sea level' (particularly the mathematical equations). Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm - I'm poking around the internet some, looking for a list of supercontinents (because I think the Wikipedia article has more listed than I thought there were). Anyway the Wikipedia article seems to be copy-and-pasted from http:// statemaster . com / encyclopedia / List - of - supercontinents with the section of Possible Future Subcontinents deleted.Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Statemaster article is a copy of the Wikipedia article (scroll down to the bottom of the Statemaster page to see the licence information). DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I continue to work sloooooowly on this on my user page.Bettymnz4 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Geology I've been doing some work over the past few months to bring the geology main article up to date (it was sitting at the first half of the 20th century, mostly). I'd love some (any!) help in expanding it and adding new sections. Awickert (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the article focusses way too much on large scales. What geology is really about is the study of 1) rocks (petrology), 2) rock strata (stratigraphy) and 3) larger scale structures of/in the Earth's crust (structural geology). Geophysics and planetary geology, which now dominate the article, are related subjects, just as Earth history, paleontology, geochemistry, etc. They should be mentioned, especially when they overlap with geology, but the focus of the article should be on the three subdisciplines. Woodwalker (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Huh - I guess when I was an undergraduate in geology, we focused on the large-scale as well as the small scale, and so "geology" was defined much more broadly. I think the reason my edits made the article go that way (besides the fact that I consider geochronology, Earth structure, and plate tectonics to definitely be within "geology") are that:

1. The article was focused on pre-20th-century geology, so I added the section on Modern Geology - maybe it would be better to re-structure (once there is enough info) into subdisciplines.
2. There was a section on planetary geology that I consolidated.
3. I was just starting, and so with an overview article, I wanted to go as broad-scale as I could (also related to the fact that I consider the broad-scale things part of geology), and so I added the sections on Earth structure, tectonics, and geochron and the time-scale as good general things to know, but not so much in a sense of fields within geology. Thinking of that, the geochron and time-scale sections should be combined, though I'd have to re-structure the "modern geology" section and create a more combined approach, as the geologic time-scale was around before the 2nd half of the 20th century.

So maybe the best conclusion would be to work on adding in more info on petrology, sed/strat, and structural geology, as you say, and try to create a new structure that (a) provides all of the required basic information and (b) Introduces the sub-fields.

Awickert (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right. The boundaries between disciplines are indeed rather vague. Plate tectonics could be seen as geophysics, but geophysics itself can also be seen as a form of geology, etc.

My point is: I think the core disciplines should be more prominently present. I would start with those (say, the "methods" of geology), then mention related things like geochemistry that are less 'core'. The current paragraph "Important principles in the Development of Geology" must be included in this. Expansion is needed yes.

After that, a next part could be on "results from geology", what you call "Modern geology": things like plate tectonics, age of the Earth, Earth history (currently has its own paragraph "Geologic time", rather unnecessary in my POV), etc. Geochronology... good point. Geochronologic methods could be mentioned together with stratigraphy I think. The current paragraph seems excellent to me, nice job.

I like the structure of the practical part ("Applied geology"), this section could still be expanded.

The lists of disciplines and regional geology articles can be removed, but that's my personal taste/POV.

The article starts with a history section. I think the emphasis is too much on the time before guys like Hutton, Cuvier or Smith "invented" modern geology and too little on more recent history. These now form equal parts, but the latter one is probably more than 10x more important. I would skip the Greeks and Arabs altogether, mention Da Vinci and Steno and then go straight to the Victorian age. Woodwalker (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your "methods of geology" idea. That could be a good construct to talk about the main things - sed/strat, structure, and petrology, in a way that addresses all of the different kinds of studies that geologists use - field, laboratory, and modeling. I think it could do a good job of being a way to more accessibly describe geology, by building on popular conceptions of geologists.

Results from geology sounds good; I think including something on geologic time is essential (in my POV); maybe it could be better if it is better-integrated with supporting information on geologic history (which is what I tried to do in a quick way in my bulleted list).

I agree - I like the applications section too - I made it! It is very stubbish, though.

I'd like to keep the list of disciplines at least until they're adequately covered in the article - in my (expansionist) POV, it's never bad to have more links, and it helps me to think of what I still need to add. Ditto on the regional geology articles: my POV is to put more links up if possible, to help interested people find articles.

Totally agree on the history/modern part. That's why when I started expanding it, I created the "modern geology" section; Vsmith told me that a lot of the article was lifted from the 1911 Britannica, which explains its 100-year-old bias. I'm less good at removing material than adding (just like the links, a pack rat POV), but I definitely think that the "history" could be dropped down to the bottom, especially once there is enough info on the article to fill up the top.

Thanks for taking the time to make the suggestions, by the way! I had no idea where to take the article.

Awickert (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a page in my sandbox to start writing up the methods of geology: User:Awickert/Sandbox/Methods_of_geology. In particular, we would cover all of the classic approaches that are mentioned by User:Woodwalker that one would need for field geology and mapping: structure, sed/strat, and petrology. The goal is that this would become a method-based instead of discipline-based introduction to classic geological investigation, and would link back to the main pages on each of the disciplines involved. Please assist if you have time and interest! Awickert (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weathering - for such a typical high school topic this article is pretty poor. There are 2 references and some confusion over carbonation/carbonatation and dissolution. If I knew more I'd DIY but I don't so I thought I'd leave you a note. Smartse (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Đavolja Varoš - I recognize these type of rock structures, but don't know what they are called or recall enough to do a useful search. I've tagged the article as needing help from this project. If someone could simply identify the structures, then it should be easy to expand the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to Hoodoo (geology), as well as some geology categories. A little expert help would still be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Low-velocity zone needs a page; it is referred to in Mantle (geology), Hawaii hotspot, Valles Caldera, Mantle plume, Asthenosphere & Lehmann discontinuity. Brews ohare (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The low-velocity zone is often coincident with the asthenosphere, but is less marked or completely absent under continental shield areas. This ref says that they are "probably quite distinct",[8] which may make a separate article potentially hard to either write or justify. I'll see whether I can come up with something. Mikenorton (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've created a short article on the LVZ. Have a look and decide whether a separate existence is justified or whether its content should be merged into the asthenosphere article. I'm leaning towards its survival. Mikenorton (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Geology of Nepal - is incomprehensible to lay readers. See my list of overly technical terms at Talk:Geology_of_Nepal. LADave (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the validity of the Hot blob article. It appears to be a theory postulated by at least a few scientists, but I'm not sure how accepted the theory is. Either way, it is in severe need of overhaul from people who understand the topic better. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important to remember that geology consists of a collection of scientific theories (generally large) and observations that have not yet had adequate explanation (generally small, like meanders or Rapakiwi orbs; though why island arcs are arced is simply implied to be explained by plate tectonics, which it isn't). The three arcane explanations for meanders make impressive reading, but (like the various columnar joints) aren't identified as just hypotheses proposed in papers. The only facts in geology are observations and measurements.

Theories of the 19th Century were replaced by theories of the 20th for good reasons. Geology has a history, and it was generally built from small objects to larger. One cannot present theories of big objects and phenomena without explaining what they explain & predict better than the previous. Why is plate tectonics better than the geosynclinal theory? (Shrinking & expanding earths were, I believe, unused by the average geologist.)

People also see smaller objects during vacations or holidays. :-) Small features, such as magnetite in basalt, were the building blocks for sea-floor spreading. Compasses' failing to work on basalt makes larger theories more interesting and closer to one. This is Woodwalker's point, I believe; one I agree with. Geologist (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One example of always having observations, theory, & methodology in the back of one's mind when writing scientific articles pops-up with low-velocity zone and asthenosphere. The low-velocity zone is a concrete object, observable on seismograms; and the asthenosphere is a theoretical object deduced from the LVZ and some other physical theory. Even if they coincide exactly, they are 'different' to a positivist scientist. Emphasizing the science in geology might also clarify to some that geology is one.-| Geologist (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of a series on Geology template

Template:Geology2
I like the "part of a series on" templates, as they serve as an easy to use gateway for readers and tie various articles together. I have previously made one for Paleontology so I decided to make one for Geology as well. I used the first Geology template as a basis. It needs review, an image, more topics and more articles. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When I see "part of a series", I expect a tightly coordinated set of articles. I think such a template would be more appropriate for something covered by a topic coordination, not an entire Wikiproject. Also, sidebar templates tend to create clutter in the lead section. For these reasons, I prefer Geology template. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RockMagnetist about the clutter factor. I like the addition of "History of Geologic science". I'd guess that List of geologists could be put there to cover the biographical aspects. However, I too prefer the bottom template format of Geology template. --Bejnar (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

New look for project?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology could do with a face lift - even with the recent improvements it's pretty cluttered. I have created a draft of a new wikiproject page at User:RockMagnetist/Drafts/WikiProject Geology. Note that the navigational information in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Navbox is replaced by tabs. If you like my version I could graft it into this project. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Mikenorton (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better, and the tabs definitely improve navigation. Nwhit (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

These positive comments have emboldened me to make the transition. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I have redirected the talk pages for the tabs to the main project talk page. The exception is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Participants because it already had some comments; I'm not sure what to do with them. Any suggestions? RockMagnetist (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be easiest to move the comments onto this talk page, similarly to how the Other articles needing work was moved to the talk page to help clear things up. Nwhit (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I decided to put them in the archive for this page at the appropriate place in chronological order. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Defunct page

The articles in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Geology have not been updated since 2009. The main page, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, is marked as inactive. I have marked it as inactive and will remove links to it. I have also put in a request to add Geology to the cleanup listing for WikiProjects. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Geochemistry

The article Geochemistry is a top-importance article for this WikiProject, yet almost the entire body is copied from a 1911 article on petrology in Encyclopædia Britannica. The source is public domain, so I don't think plagiarism is an issue – but it might be a bit out of date! RockMagnetist (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Algoman orogeny, a Good Article prospect

In assessing WP Geology articles, I ran across Algoman orogeny. It looks to me as though it might be ready for a GA nomination. Does anybody see any obvious holes, or should I say lacunae? It's talk page is empty except for the project's banner. --Bejnar (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article looks well-sourced, but it's a little out of my comfort zone. User:Bettymnz4 contributed most of the article, and shows some recent activity, maybe their input should be sought? Nwhit (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that a number of articles listed on User:Bettymnz4's page are of similar quality Nwhit (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#New peer review process and Wikipedia:Peer review/Algoman orogeny/archive1. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

US geologic formations

Note

I changed User:Bettymnz4's Great Lakes tectonic zone to Mid importance. I personally think that the Great Lakes tectonic zone, the San Andreas Fault, the Yellowstone hotspot and the New Madrid Seismic Zone are the most important geologic features in the USA. The Yellowstone hotspot and the New Madrid Seismic Zone aren't part of the WP Geology. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationale

The USA could be described as: Cascade-Sierra Mountains province, Yellowstone hotspot track (Snake River Plain), Basin and Range Province, Rocky Mountains, Mississippi Basin and Appalachian Mountains. Great Lakes tectonic zone and New Madrid Seismic Zone are near the Mississippi valley. Jemez Lineament, Rio Grande rift and Hawaii hotspot are interesting formations too, but they are in less populated areas. There are faults in the direction of the North American craton's motion in or near the Basin and Range Province, the Jemez Lineament has a SW-NE orientation too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

San Andreas Fault is a threat for the Yellowstone's magma chamber and New Madrid Seismic Zone is a threat for the Mississippi valley. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment/Peer review

We have two places where people can request an assessment/peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. Shouldn't these be combined? One option would be to transclude the former into the latter.RockMagnetist (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think having two pages for essentially the same thing is needless and confusing. I'd say merge the two. Nwhit (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I thought that they had two different functions. The second just asks that the page be rated on the quality scale by someone not a major contributor. The first asks for broader community involvement. --Bejnar (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess so; maybe it would be clearer if the two functions were displayed on the same page so editors know what their choices are. Also, we need some mechanism to show what has been done and to archive the request when it is completed. I picked two requests at random; Geology of Scotland has gone from Start to GA since the request was made, while Marshall Kay hadn't even been rated yet and has had only microscopic changes in the last 3 years. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On closer examination, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews is not a true peer review page. It is just a set of links that someone has added. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so we know where we stand, I have crossed out requests that were fulfilled or had no response in several months. That leaves one request! Of course, it doesn't stop anyone from working on the closed requests ... RockMagnetist (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured lists?

I was just checking on the lists within WikiProject Geology and I came across this list: List of impact craters on Earth and its sub-lists. They seem to be well-organised and complete, what more needs to be done before they become featured lists? Nwhit (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for a featured list are given at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. One criterion that is clearly not met is that it should have an engaging lead. Also, the notability criteria for stand-alone lists need to be met. In particular, this list needs to cite some source that establishes the notability of the list as a group. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New peer review process

I have completely rewritten Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews to implement a process for a peer review of Geology articles. To try it out, I created a peer review request for Algoman orogeny. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought from another project: In the "How to respond to a request" section would it not be better to create a subpage of the talk page of the article for peer review: e.g. Talk:Algoman orogeny/PR, reference it with a link from the talk page notice, and from the request page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews). How does that sound, instead of mucking up the main Peer review page with article detail? --Bejnar (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't mucking up the main Peer review page. I followed the standard procedure and created Wikipedia:Peer review/Algoman orogeny/archive1. Then, as I suggest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews#Nomination procedure, I simply create a link to that page in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews#Current peer reviews. I looked at how several wikiprojects approach this issue, and I think my solution is easier and neater than any of them, with the possible exception of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, the peer review is at a subpage Wikipedia:Peer review/Algoman orogeny/archive1. I missed that the word "request" in the PR notice linked to the page where we were to leave comments, and misunderstood where the "article's section on this page" (of /*How to respond to a request */) was located namely as a subpage /article name/achive1. --Bejnar (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see how that would be misleading. I have tried listing it a different way in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Peer reviews#Current peer reviews. If you prefer that, I can change the instructions. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Maybe the PR talk page template as well. --Bejnar (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GPR

Does ground-penetrating radar come under WP Geology? A large chunk of the article is almost identical to an article I found on google.

Compare the last 4 sections of http://www.jetsilverventures.com/ground-penetrating-radar-2/ with the last 4 sections of the article. I don't know who is copying who here. Nwhit (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a WP Geology banner to the talk page. If you look at old versions of this article, you can see that it has been developing gradually over several years. So it's pretty clear that the other site is copying ground-penetrating radar. This is not unusual - WP articles often have several clones on the Web. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware that there are many clones around on the internet, I just didn't think that a company would lift entire sections and try to pass them off as their own work. Nwhit (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have found lots of Wikipedia geography text on real estate promotion pages, with no attribution. I have even seen entire Wikipedia paragraphs lifted into UN documents (I compared dates.). One of the most irritating, although usually done with attribution, are the self-published books that appear on Amazon and Google Books that are reprints of bundled Wikipedia articles. Several times I have had to remind new editors that they are not reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Geological time period capitalization

The various articles are inconsistent with respect to capitalization with on time units. Per ICS the International Stratigraphic Guide, Chapter 9. Chronostratigraphic Units:

A formal chronostratigraphic unit is given a binomial designation - a proper name plus a term-word - and the initial letters of both are capitalized. Its geochronologic equivalent uses the same proper name combined with the equivalent geochronologic term, e.g., Cretaceous System - Cretaceous Period.

I have modified the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic articles for consistency as well as Template:Geological era. Will pause a bit for reaction/comments before continuing. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is spot on. Neither Vsmith nor other editors should hesitate to fix proper name capitalization. --Bejnar (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We should hesitate, at least until we decide that we should have an exception to MOS:CAPS, which states that "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Sources certainly don't do this consistently: [9]. See also WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Vsmith, the last time you changed to capitalize Era in Template:Geological era, you were reverted by another editor who cited [10] in his edit summary. It says "Capitalize the names of geological eras, periods, epochs, and series but do not capitalize the word indicating the amount of time: Jurassic period, Cenozoic era." Did you look at that? Discuss it? Or just try again? Obviously, styles and guides vary on such things, but is there a compelling reason to edit against our own MOS guidance without discussing it first? Dicklyon (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not usually see capitalization of the word indicating the amount of time so I would stick with that. Volcanoguy 07:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

According to The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing page on capitalization, in the section "General Guidelines for Capitalizing Scientific Terms", Capitalize the names of geological eras, periods, epochs, and series but do not capitalize the word indicating the amount of time: Jurassic period Cenozoic era. That link is to a website, but the Mayfield Handbook is also a published book. On the other hand, p. 499 of Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers has the opposite advice, so perhaps there is not an agreed-upon convention here (the Mayfield Handbook is more recent, though). If you search google scholar for some papers with a phrase like "devonian period" it does seem from the first few pages of results that it's more common to leave "period" uncapitalized, but both conventions are used. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, style guides and sources either disagree or are inconsistent. So I looked up what the ICS said about it and went with that - considering the Period part of Cambrian Period as part of the formal name. I then brought it here for discussion. The various style guides disagree it seems and yes good old google shows inconsistency. Wikipedia is inconsistent. MOS says proper names should be capitalised ... and something about relying on sources: ICS is a source and Cambrian Period is the formal name (and I've read that SSF essay). The possible ambiguity is why I brought it up here. Altho' here may not have been the best place as it took awhile for responses. Vsmith (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Chinese scholar's rocks

I am not sure that the Chinese scholar's rocks article belongs in this project just because they are made from rock. Just like I don't think Michelangelo's David belongs in the project just because it is made from marble. What do you all think? --Bejnar (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Vsmith (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On a similar theme, what about Stone of Scone? Nwhit (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed. --Bejnar (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

The cleanup listing is now active - see the box in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology#Recent changes on project-related articles. It's quite a daunting list! RockMagnetist (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

To-do

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/to do: It's possible to get an update on the to-do list? User: Bender235 requested Brownleeite on 15 June 2008‎. The article was expanded between 14 June 2008 and 14 July 2008, there are many articles needing work on WP Rocks and Minerals. Mining is WP Mining, and User:RockMagnetist added a "Tick". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering what role a to-do list plays when we also have Open tasks, Requests for assessment, peer reviews and article alerts. It we do need a to-do list, maybe {{Tasks}} would be more appropriate. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Up to now, to-do lists for this project have been pretty haphazard. We should keep in mind which articles are the most important. These include Core topics, vital articles and top-importance articles in WikiProject Geology. I have been adding lists of important articles to Open tasks. We might want to consider periodically choosing an article from the list and trying to bump it up to GA status (only one, Earth, is GA status or higher). In my opinion, Plate tectonics is a top-importance article that may be almost ready for GA. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations, unreviewed good article nominations: 307. The reviewer should have knowledge on geology, WP Geology might as well nominate it and review it itself (",) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Plate tectonics, just in case u didn't notice:

• July 11, 2004 - Featured article candidate - Promoted - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Plate tectonics/archive1
• February 12, 2008 - Featured article review - Demoted - Wikipedia:Featured article review/Plate tectonics/archive1
• June 11, 2008 - Good article nominee - Not listed - Talk:Plate tectonics/GA1

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that - and the only comment about the good article nomination was that some sections had no citations. That problem has been fixed. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Plate tectonics (93.8 kBytes) and Hawaii hotspot (58.0 kBytes) have similar problems. You aren't able to keep the quality of all sentences on a page high. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created a Tasks list. Given the overwhelming size of the cleanup listing, it seemed useful to extract only the high- and top-importance articles and put them in a separate list. As these tasks are completed, they should be checked off. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A warning about the cleanup listing: it is fully up to date, but some of the tags are very hard to spot. For example, Siberian Traps has a {{coord missing|Russia}} tag near the top, but it only shows up in the hidden categories. You can see the hidden categories either by opening the editor and looking at the stuff below the edit window or by setting your Preferences to show hidden categories. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Expanded vital articles list: Earth science section

The following is a link to the Earth sciences section of the expanded vital articles list:

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Earth science

If you have an interest, I'd like to suggest adding a link to your WikiProject page. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

We do: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Tasks#Vital_articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the non-expanded list of 1,000. The expanded list is 10 times larger. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

San Andreas and fault articles for California

There's a template on the San Andreas Fault page, and discussion on the talk page for the template under the title "Southern terminus? -- Expert Needed." I tried to answer the poster's concerns, but perhaps the page needs some work, so the template can be removed. Also, there was some discussion on the talk page for Category talk:Seismic faults of California about integrating the fault zone articles. A WikiProject Geology template should likely be on this category's talk page also. (I'm an editor on other WikiProjects, but I teach earth sciences among other things, so I occasionally consult articles on geology.) — ★Parsa ☞ talk 23:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hydrology stub

I have requested a hydrology stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2012/March in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#Proposing new stub types - procedure. Any comments there, pro or con, would be appreciated. --Bejnar (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dee Hawkins

Anybody think that Dee Hawkins is notable? --Bejnar (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the references,

• he does own Hawkins Trailer
• the ref for Rockhound Supply fails verification
• ref 3 says nothing about him being treasurer, though ref 4's site may say somewhere
• he does seem to have Sumerian artifacts and a 250000 lb collection
• I can find nothing about the sapphire

In short, we can verify that he owns a business and has a large rock collection. However, the only bits that seem notable are verified by primary sources. The only mention in the newspaper is as a contact number. I think he may be below the threshold of notability. Chris857 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Helen M. Duncan nominated for deletion.

Just an FYI that geologist and paleontologist Helen M. Duncan, created as part of WikiWomen's History Month, has been nominated for deletion. Sarah (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is already closed with an overwhelming mandate to keep the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Templates

I just deleted the page this goes with (per a speedy request for routine housekeeping), and since it is fairly recent, I wanted to make sure it was seen before I deleted the talk page. Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Many scientific articles on geology and paleontology contain schematics of the stratification of the deposits. I find those really useful, but using these would be copyright infringement. Now, it would not be impossible to produce such schematics yourself, upload it to WikiCommons, and put them in an article, but it seems to me there would be great merit in having a template that would do that job. It would standardise such schematics, and would be an encouragement to include such information in articles, particularly for those editors who are no grafic designers. Having said this, I certainly lack the skill to build a template like that. Hope it is nontheless useful I bring this up. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Valfontis. This belongs on a talk page anyway. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Tertiary" in sources

Could someone advise a non-geologist which approach is normally recommended when dealing with sources which use "Tertiary" rather than "Paleogene" - must Tertiary also be used in the Wikipedia article which the source is used for (to be faithful to the source), or is it acceptable to update the term to the officially recognised one? My question is not about direct quotes, which obviously must remain unaltered, but about general transference of info from source to article, in particular with respect to general articles which might have a bit about geology within them. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Tertiary is not exactly equivalent to the Cenozoic as it did not include the Quaternary, so it often requires a bit more information to decide which interval should be used. I would suggest generally replacing Tertiary with Cenozoic but being aware that it may not always be accurate - you wouldn't want to describe the stratigraphy of an area starting with the Cenozoic and then moving on to the Quaternary for example. Sorry not give a more definitive answer. Mikenorton (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no that is helpful. I understand that to mean that if, for example, a source refers to some deposits from the "mid-Tertiary", and I look at a Brit Geol Soc map of the area and see them labelled as Eocene, it's OK to adjust the info from the source so it reads "Eocene", and that this act doesn't class as unacceptable editorial synthesis of source info? (I actually think that the problem caused by this issue is quite widespread; whereas geology articles may largely be consistent and up-to-date, other articles referring to these terms can be quite a muddle - see here for an example). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In that specific case you could add the map as a source, so no synthesis involved. If a source only uses the imprecise term 'mid-Tertiary', 'mid Cenozoic' would be fine I think. The Holly article is pretty confused, I'll see what I can do to fix that. Mikenorton (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very helpful - thanks! Curiosity about this whole matter drives me to ask another question, this time regarding what has happened to the status of the Quaternary. Prior to your first reply above, I had read this page: http://www.stratigraphy.org/bak/geowhen/TQ.html which dates from 2005 and states that the ICS decided to 'do away with' the term Quaternary. But from your reply it's apparent that the term Quaternary is still approved, and from reading the Cenozoic article it seems this approval dates from 2009. Assuming I haven't misunderstood anything along the way, this leaves me wondering why the Quaternary was reinstated so soon after having been deprecated? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a pretty powerful backlash, particularly from various Departments of Quaternary Research and the International Union for Quaternary Research in particular, and a new compromise was put in place fairly quickly, which restored the Quaternary as the most recent of three periods in the Cenozoic, with an adjustment in which the Gelasian was moved from the Neogene (in the Pliocene) to the Quaternary (in the Pleistocene) in order to make a more logical start to the period. Mikenorton (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's scientists for you - always disagreeing! Were the objections based on purely scientific reasoning or was there an element of 'we don't want to change our name' going on, do you think? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not purely scientific I think [11]. Mikenorton (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, somewhat disappointing. Though not the first time such things have occurred in 'rational' science (nor the last either...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

What would all the people with qualifications in Quaternary Studies have done? ;> Pterre (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously they would have had to change discipline and their employment (floristry? piano tuning? automobile valeting?), and maybe even moved house as well.... :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The good news for all of us is that the "Quaternary" has always been associated with "Quaternary Ice Age". Until the recent move, the Gelasian stage of the Pliocene was the real start of glaciation - meaning that the change makes the time scale and the phrase "Quaternary Ice Age" make a lot more sense! I think that there has been a long-term critical mass of scientists wanting this change to happen for those practical reasons, and a (dwindling?) bunch of people who didn't want to see old conventions go by the wayside (thus making parts of the pre-2009 "Pliocene" become post-2009 "Pleistocene"). As someone who spends most of his time working on Quaternary problems, the change is a definite help. Awickert (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikibook

Did anyone else know about Book:Earth? It was created at the end of last year. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is also Book:Earth science. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Expand assessment template?

In the article statistics for this project, there are 582 articles of class NA. Over half of these are simply non-article pages such as files, categories and templates. Is there any interest in extending {{WikiProject Geology}} to support non-article classes? RockMagnetist (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Category Loop

I just found a category loop from Category:Minerals -> Category:Natural resources‎ -> Category:Minerals. Any suggestions on a solution? Chris857 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed Category:Minerals from the parent cats of Category:Natural resources‎. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

There is a request for comment concerning the Hydraulic fracturing article. Beagel (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Geomorphology stub

In May 2011 the geomorphology stub was created. See Template:Geomorph-stub. However, it wasn't listed with the geology stub types on the stub sorting page. That has been corrected. Should a landforms-stub template redirect to geomorphology? --Bejnar (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benjar; thanks for fixing that! I made that stub a while ago and obviously didn't know everything about making them. "Geomorphology" encompasses both Earth surface processes and the observed landforms, so a redirect would be OK - though if there are a ton of landforms-stubs, then maybe it's OK to keep them as their own category? I'd say your call, Awickert (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens there is also a Template:Topography-stub. I need to think more about it, and what should go where.--Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

GA: Algoman orogeny

I have added Algoman orogeny to the list of Good article nominations for Earth sciences. Any help in improving the article would be appreciated, especially interpreting terms like "downfaulting". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month: History of the Earth

We don't really have a formal process Collaboration of the Month, so I'd like to suggest an article: History of the Earth. This is a supplemental core article and appears nearly ready for a successful GA nomination - at least, on the surface. However, I am finding that it is full of text that is not really supported by the citations. I have cleared up all the issues from the most recent GA review and done a lot of cleanup, but I could use some help with fact checking. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Tufa vs. tuffeau

Hello,

The article on tufa claims:

Some sources suggest that "tufa" was used as the primary building material for most of the châteaux of the Loire Valley, France. This results from a mis-translation of the terms "tuffeau jaune" and "tuffeau blanc", which are porous varieties of the Late Cretaceous marine limestone known as chalk.

This isn't explicitly stated in the sources cited, and the only other reference I could find was [12]. Many sources use tufa and tuffeau as synonyms.

On the English Wikipedia there are two separate articles, tufa and tuffeau. However, the French Wikipedia seems to only have one, and the article on tuffeau has interwiki links to tufa in other languages.

Can anyone clear this up?

Thank you. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The french article also mentions fr:tuf, and that article covers both 'tuff' and 'tufa' which suggests that those interwiki links are wrong and I've changed the iw link in Tufa accordingly. The terms 'tuffeau blanc' and 'tuffeau jaune' are both used to describe varieties of chalk [13] & [14]. Mikenorton (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. InverseHypercube (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance of articles on famous geologists

A while ago, a question was asked on the Alfred Wegener talk page as to why his article was only regarded as 'mid' importance. I pointed out that neither James Hutton nor William Smith made into the 'high' category, although I see that Hutton has since been 'promoted', with only Charles Lyell making the grade at that time. I suggested then that it could be raised here, and, following the original point being reiterated today, I decided that I would ask if the importance of such geologists should be re-evaluated. I've also reassessed Myra Keen as mid-importance, rather than 'high'. Mikenorton (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to rate some geologists higher. Other wikiprojects even have Top-importance people (see, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Quality_Control#People). RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'm aware that this could be a little contentious. Perhaps we could start by listing those geologists/geophysicists whose article should be made 'Top' importance and getting agreement here before making any changes. Mikenorton (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting exercise to use the Wikipedia Release Version tool to generate a list of geology articles and look at the scores. The scores help determine whether the articles are included in future releases. The top scores for geologists are:

• Charles Lyell (1434, viewed 13,330 times in the last 30 days)
• James Hutton (1409, viewed 10,373 times in the last 30 days)
• Alfred Wegener (1325, viewed 23,699 times in the last 30 days)
• Edmond Halley (1294, viewed 8,385 times in the last 30 days)
• Nicholas Steno (1289, viewed 4,662 times in the last 30 days)
• David A. Johnston (1228, viewed 6,860 times in the last 30 days)
• James Dwight Dana (1184, viewed 1,019 times in the last 30 days)
• William Smith (geologist) (1168, viewed 2,801 times in the last 30 days)
• Myra Keen (493, viewed 166 times in the last 30 days)
• Patrick Marshall (638, viewed 199 times in the last 30 days)

The first two rate higher than Geologist and would not be out of place in the list of top-importance list - even though having a lower importance rating lowers their score. The rest would be well above the bottom of the High-importance list. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As an experiment, I changed the ratings of Lyell and Hutton to Top-importance. I'd like to see how it changes the score - if I can figure out how to update it. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How are the scores worked out? (showing my ignorance) Mikenorton (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the 'External interest points' part is less intuitive, but it's good to see that it's not just based on editor assessments, which would be self-fulfilling. Mikenorton (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest caveat is that sometimes the high score is due to an assessment in a different WikiProject. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The scores are now Lyell - 1534 and Hutton - 1509. That puts them right in the middle of the Top-importance pack (see this table). RockMagnetist (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not hard to find absurdities in the assessments. For example:

• Harry Hammond Hess: low (viewed 2,593 times in the last 30 days)
• Walter Alvarez: Unassessed (viewed 1,582 times in the last 30 days)
• J Harlen Bretz: Not even a Geology banner! (697 times in the last 30 days)
• Keith Runcorn: low (viewed 298 times in the last 30 days)
• Reginald Aldworth Daly: Not even a Geology banner! (viewed 211 times in the last 30 days)

I didn't think it necessary to discuss these before fixing them. I'll bet a lot of the other principals in the plate tectonics revolution are also undervalued. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Added some --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added Arthur Holmes, Robert Mallet, Charles Darwin, Charles Lapworth, Roderick Murchison, Louis Agassiz, Norman Bowen, Archibald Geikie, William Buckland, Victor Goldschmidt, Charles Richter and John Milne to the project - there are still plenty of articles out there missing the Geology banner. Mikenorton (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're taking the right approach, just boldly reassessing articles. There aren't any archived debates on the importance of geologists, and so far the only responses in this section have been positive or neutral. Anyway, I don't think that the importance ratings have much of an effect on where people direct their efforts. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree, but u can look for inspiration there. @Mikenorton Charles Darwin Mid-importance on WP Geology, are you sure? Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends what we're rating Darwin for, his contributions as a geologist or the overall impact of his work on evolution on geology - I was thinking of the former. Mikenorton (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Mary Anning worth at least a banner...? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I added the banner. Articles don't need to meet some standard to get a banner, they just need to have something to do with geology. And we're always glad to add to our list of FA articles! Feel free to add banners wherever you think they are needed. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Absolutely, as I said above there are still lots of articles on geologists/geophysicists that don't have a banner. I did a bunch of them, but then ran out of steam/time. Mikenorton (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my analysis of scores (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Importance assessment), the following would be moved from Mid- to High-importance: William Smith (geologist), David A. Johnston, Edmond Halley, Alfred Wegener, Henry Cavendish. Nicholas Steno and James Dwight Dana already are High-importance. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think David A. Johnston is WP Geology High-importance. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. He's mainly famous for how he died. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)