Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Archive 8) (bot
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Tab header}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Tab header}}
{{shortcut|WT:GEOL}}
{{shortcut|WT:GEOL}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Geology}}
{{WikiProject Geology}}
}}
{{to do|target=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Tasks|collapsed = yes}}
{{to do|target=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Tasks|collapsed = yes}}
<!-- Archive Bot -->
<!-- Archive Bot -->
Line 19: Line 21:
{{archives|search=yes|box-width=180px|age=60|minthreadsleft=8|index=/Archive index|auto=short}}
{{archives|search=yes|box-width=180px|age=60|minthreadsleft=8|index=/Archive index|auto=short}}


== Stratigraphy model article ==
== Adolf Peretti draft at AfC ==
{{resolved}}

On behalf of the subject and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have submitted a [[Draft:Adolf Peretti|draft article about Adolf Peretti]] for review, if any project members are interested in taking a look. I have disclosed my COI on the draft and its Talk page, and will avoid editing the main space. Thanks! [[User:Inkian Jason|Inkian Jason]] ([[User talk:Inkian Jason|talk]]) 18:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Among other topics I'm hoping to work on for the project, I have a hobby interest in geology, and thought I could do some good attending to the infinite list of tiny, poorly-written stratigraphy articles. Obviously, not all units are created equal but as I'm bungling around with these, a format exemplar would sure be handy. Is [[Marcellus Formation]] the best model article to use as far as overall structure and article goals are concerned? [[User:Lubal|Lubal]] ([[User talk:Lubal|talk]]) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
: The draft was taken live. Thanks! [[User:Inkian Jason|Inkian Jason]] ([[User talk:Inkian Jason|talk]]) 19:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

== Members and supergroups ==

While I was looking through the [[stratigraphic unit]] article I noticed [[member (geology)]] and [[supergroup (geology)]] don't have articles while the other three types of units ([[bed (geology)]], [[geological formation]] and [[group (stratigraphy)]]) have articles. Does anyone have an explanation for why this is? '''[[User:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: red;">Volcano</i>]][[User talk:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: black;">guy</i>]]''' 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

:{{Replyto|Volcanoguy}} my best guess is that all stratigraphy is subdivided into formations and many of those are "grouped" into groups but that supergroups are relatively unusual (see [[:category:Geological supergroups]]) and very few members are notable (see [[:category:Geological members]]. As to "bed", there is a lot to say on the topic. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 16:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Mikenorton}} Is there proof or evidence that very few members are notable? I understand most members redirect to formation articles but that could be because the member is not notable, few users have had the courage to write member articles or because there's no need for a separate member article; most formation articles I've seen aren't that big so splitting them would be unnecessary. '''[[User:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: red;">Volcano</i>]][[User talk:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: black;">guy</i>]]''' 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Replyto|Volcanoguy}} Agreed, that is mostly why we don't have articles on individual members - formation articles are often only stubs anyway. A lot of our formation articles were created related to their fossil content and there has always been the presumption of notability for any formation article. I'm not sure that I can prove my suggestion about members, just a (probably unreliable) feeling. I've only worked on the [[Stac Fada Member]], where notability was not a concern. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Mikenorton}} The only member article I've created so far is [[Sheep Track Member]] out of [[WP:UNDUE]] concerns; the Sheep Track Member section in the [[Big Raven Formation]] article being more detailed than the other sections could have been problematic because the Sheep Track Member is only a minor sub-unit of the Big Raven Formation. '''[[User:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: red;">Volcano</i>]][[User talk:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: black;">guy</i>]]''' 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

== Unbalanced hypothesis presentation at [[Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California)]] ==

I see that the "Sierra did not uplift strongly in the Pliocene" hypothesis is presented as a dominant theory at [[Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California)]]. IIUC, this is a minority hypothesis: it isn't exactly [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]], but it isn't commonly accepted (again, as far as I know).

I could dig into this, but I don't have the time to do it justice. Would any other editor like to step in? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 04:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

:If I somehow find the time I will take a look at it. Could be today, could also be in half a year, but it's on the list. --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks! — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::I have a large of PDFs of papers, disertations, theses, etc. about the geology of the Table Mountain in Tuolumne County, California, the Sierra Nevada, the "auriferous gravels," Ione Formation, and so forth. I have been meaning to use these to work on this and other articles. I guess it is time to look through all of this and see what I can do to revise this article. [[User:Paul H.|Paul H.]] ([[User talk:Paul H.|talk]]) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:I think there are two different hypotheses that being discussed at this time:
:
:1. One is that "...the Sierra Nevada has existed as a major topographic feature since at least the Late Miocene with mean elevations comparable with the modern..." \and
:
:2. "...large-magnitude surface uplift in the last 3–4 Ma as a result of delamination and removal of a dense continental lithospheric root beneath the Sierra Nevada (46–49).
:
:For an example, go see:
:
:Mulch, A., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Perkins, M.E. and Chamberlain, C.P., 2008. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0708811105 A Miocene to Pleistocene climate and elevation record of the Sierra Nevada (California).] ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'', ''105''(19), pp.6819-6824. [[User:Paul H.|Paul H.]] ([[User talk:Paul H.|talk]]) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, you are correct. When I was talking about the minority hypothesis, I was referring to your hypothesis #1. I also have seen papers on hypothesis #2.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Mantle instability beneath the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California and Death Valley extension|date=November 2006|journal=Earth and Planetary Science Letters|volume=251|issue=1|pages=104-119|doi=10.1016/j.epsl.2006.08.028}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Zandt|first=G|year=2003|title=The Southern Sierra Nevada Drip and the Mantle Wind Direction Beneath the Southwestern United States|journal=International Geology Review|volume=45|issue=3|page=213–224|doi=10.2747/0020-6814.45.3.213}}</ref> I don't know the level of acceptance of hypothesis #2. To make things more complex, if I understand correctly, the delamination hypothesis appears to explain uplift in the south Sierra but not in the north. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

== Adopting a policy concerning the relative abundance of less common elements? ==

A few weeks ago we revamped the table in [[Abundance of elements in Earth's crust]]. In discussing those changes, the related problem of the relative abundance of elements in individual or group pages on elements was raised.

As you may know, a determined IP user has been adding unsourced lines like:
* It is the 45th most abundant element in the crust.
to elements like Hafnium, Europium, Erbium ‎and so on and on. These have been reverted. I removed a bunch more over the weekend.

A few pages, eg [[Lead]] have sources for relative abundance. The two sources that do give explicit relative abundance are Elmsley "Nature's building blocks : an A-Z guide to the elements" 2011 and Greenwood and Earnshaw (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.) There may be more. I don't know if the numbers in Elmsley vs Greenwood and Earnshaw agree.

I have not found any scientific or textbook discussion of relative abundance, but all of the primary and secondary sources on abundance make the point that the concentrations vary widely. The CRC handbook reports "median" values across multiple sources, saying something like "values of the less abundant elements may vary with location by several orders of magnitude."

In my opinion ranking the less abundant elements is not "knowledge" because the numerical value reported creates an illusion of solidity contrary to the evidence. Unfortunately our options are limited by the sources. For example we can't say "Hafnium is the around the 45th most abundant element in the crust" because that is not what the source says.

Some options for discussion:
# Status quo. The referenced ranking stay; the unreferenced ones are reverted.
# Agree that ranking are not notable. Remove the few existing ones. Revert additions.
# Add Elmsley values with ref but without comment.
# Add Elmsley values by name, eg "Elmsley reports Hafnium is the 45th most abundant element in the crust.(ref)"
(I picked Elmsley because its available online). While I would prefer to omit this "factoid" and in option 2, I lean to option 4 though I suppose our determined editor will just find some other way to "contribute".

Thoughts? [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

:Not being a geologist, I do have the book by Greenwood & Earnshaw, and I don't have any by Elmsley. On the iodine example I can say it does not agree to the other sources that I can consult online. This is what they say about the iodine abundance: {{blockquote|Iodine is considerably less abundant than the lighter halogens both in the earth's crust and in the hydrosphere. It comprises 0.46 ppm of the crustal rocks and is sixtieth in order of abundance (cf. Tl 0.7, Tm 0.5, In 0.24, Sb 0.2).}}
:Wikipedia, on these days, says iodine is the 64th, while having mentioned the Greenwood-&-Earnshaw 0.46 ppm (strange).
:On the other hand, a study of 300 various rocks' samples found that the iodine abundance is even lower 0.119 ppm (in continental earth's crust, the surface of which is "contaminated" by constantly cycling iodine from the richer oceanic crust and seawater).<ref>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009254198000138</ref>
:I'm being inclined to the option #2, but not that strict. I would avoid indicating the direct rank, shift focus to the distribution peculiarities, absolute concentrations or relative abundance if possible. To find the optimal path in the complex reference landscape, so to speak.

:[[User:Tosha Langue|Tosha Langue]] ([[User talk:Tosha Langue|talk]]) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::By the way, I found a source that ranks an element roughly. "[...] lutetium, the scarcest REE (rate earth element), is about the 60th most abundant.<ref>https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-resources-and-advice/australian-resource-reviews/rare-earth-elements</ref> But I don't know if it is that reliable.
:: Yet another thought: an element's abundance rank may provide more sense when viewed along with another metric, characterizing the element's dissemination extent, right? But I don't know if such a measure exists.
::[[User:Tosha Langue|Tosha Langue]] ([[User talk:Tosha Langue|talk]]) 08:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:::There's the [[Goldschmidt classification]], but it's not quantitative. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, thanks, we applied that across the table in [[Abundance of elements in Earth's crust]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:::All of the comments similar to: "lutetium, the scarcest REE (rate earth element), is about the 60th most abundant" are bogus in my opinion. The scarcity of an element is unrelated to its average concentration in the crust. Many elements are concentrated as pure metals in veins or in ores. Their average concentration may be very low but they can easily be mined and thus are not scarce.
:::Really the only significance of relative abundance is in relation to cosmology or [[geochemical cycle]]. And in those applications we are only interested in orders of magnitude. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Bogus. Agree with the estimate! The best I managed to find is [[Clarke number]]. [[User:Tosha Langue|Tosha Langue]] ([[User talk:Tosha Langue|talk]]) 18:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== [[Late Glacial Interstadial]] and [[Bølling–Allerød warming]] ==

Are these two articles the same topic? The article on the [[Bølling–Allerød warming]] currently begins {{tq|The Bølling–Allerød interstadial (Danish: [ˈpøle̝ŋ ˈæləˌʁœðˀ]), also called the Late Glacial Interstadial...}} which implies that it is exactly the same topic as the [[Late Glacial Interstadial]] article. If this is the case, then these two articles are clearly duplicates and should be merged. However, reading the academic literature, the term "Bølling–Allerød warming" seems to apply specifically to the sharp warming episode at the begnning of the interstadial, though I am not sure that would warrant a standalone article from the interstadial itself. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:: I've opened a merge discussion at [[Talk:Bølling–Allerød_warming]]. Participate if interested. Thanks. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

== Monzogranite not in great shape ==

I found the [[Monzogranite]] article filled with too many details and too much jargon. Attempted to clean it up, but it's still missing the "big picture" of what monzogranite is and why it's interesting (if it is interesting). Having an expert in [[petrology]] look at it could be helpful. Thanks! — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 05:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:The lead section seems to be based almost entirely on a particular field example, which is not representative. Still trying to find a reliable source for this but apparently 70% of granites are monzogranites. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 14:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:Thinking more on this, and after looking at the [[syenogranite]] article, I would suggest that both of these are simply redirected to [[granite]], which already contains all you need to know about the terms - they're both essentially dictionary definitions with examples. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

== Wobbly maths in [[Template:Infobox geologic timespan]]? ==

I applied this template to [[Bølling–Allerød Interstadial]] today, after first spotting it at the ''Allerød oscillation'' stub (now merged to the Interstadial article.) It's a neat template, but I am not quite sure how it does some unit conversions. I.e. based on Figure 2 of [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation this Nature study], I set the mean {{CO2}} concentration for 235 ppm - and the infobox automatically wrote that this was {{tq|1 times pre-industrial}} - even though the actual preindustrial {{CO2}} level was at ~280 ppm.


== Rename/Move of all tectonic plate names - Proposal discussion ==
On the other hand, I tried work backwards for Mean surface temperature parameter. The same figure in the same paper stated that the temperature was ~1.5C lower than the early Holocene mean (which appears practically the same as the preindustrial based on [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7#Fig6 Figure 6 here], so I wanted to set a value that would be described as "2.5 below modern" or thereabouts. Yet, somehow, it didn't work - setting the temperature at 12C results in "2 C below modern", yet 11.5 somehow results in "3 below modern". How does that work?


A proposal to rename/move the articles for Earth's tectonic plates is being discussed at [[Talk:Eurasian_Plate#Requested_move_6_October_2024]]. The rename involves changing the word "plate" to lowercase; for example, change from e.g. "Eurasian Plate" to "Eurasian plate". The proposal currently lists 74 plates. Participation in the discussion is welcome. [[User:GeoWriter|GeoWriter]] ([[User talk:GeoWriter|talk]]) 11:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Lastly, it's probably not a good idea that {{CO2}} concentration is described relative to preindustrial, yet temperature relative to "modern". It would obviously need regular updates for the foreseeable future to avoid becoming misleading, yet even if those updates ''are'' being done, there is no way to tell at a glance whether the temperature value the infobox considers "modern" in fact matches the present-day temperature value (which, lest we forget, continues to rise). [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 16:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:This RM to lowercase the world's tectonic plates was relisted on October 15. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


== One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! ==
:I fixed the rounding of {{para|CO2}} in the infobox --- it will supply one additional significant figure if the concentration is less then 560ppm.


:As to temperature, IIUC, the paleoclimate estimates are not accurate to 0.1C, so rounding to the nearest 1C seems wise. I believe by "modern", the infobox means "compared to the global mean of 1961-1990"<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jones|first1=PD|last2=New|first2=M|last3=Parker|first3=DE|last4=Martin|first4=S|last5=Rigor|first5=IG|title=Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years|journal=Reviews of Geophysics|volume=37|issue=2|doi=10.1029/1999RG900002|pages=173-199|year=1999}}</ref> The term "modern" is ambiguous, but I think making the infobox more wordy would not serve the users. We could add a reference to that paper (although we would then depend on an article having a References section). Pre-industrial mean temperature is probably 13.5C, so it would most likely not make a difference in any infobox, unless the paleotemperature was supplied with 0.1C precision. I would recommend just leaving it alone, but if other Geology editors think it should be changed, will go along with consensus. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 17:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


{| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%"
::Later -- I changed the temperature baseline to 13.5C and displayed the difference to the nearest 0.5C. I'm not convinced that we know paleotemperature averages to 0.5C, so I worry this is [[WP:OVERPRECISE]]. Thoughts? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 02:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
|-
:::This is much better, thanks! I have added this to [[Younger Dryas]] as well now, in addition to B-A Interstadial. Please check if there are any errors (i.e. I just copied the links for Chronological unit and Stratigraphic unit from what ''Allerød oscillation'' used to have, but I am not sure if that is accurate?)
|[[File:Articles for improvement star.svg|right|85px]]
:::I should also say that at least for those two periods, these are temperatures from the geologically recent past, <15,000 years ago, where [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7#Fig6 five different methods of estimating temperature] are available. If ''Nature'' does not consider their temperature graphs overprecise, who are we to say otherwise?
Hello,<br>Please note that '''[[Longshore drift]]''', which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the '''[[Wikipedia:Articles for improvement|Articles for improvement]]'''. The article is [[Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Schedule|scheduled]] to appear on Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Community portal|Community portal]] in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! <!-- Substituted from Template:AFI project notice --><br />
::::Yes, I was thinking of temperatures much further in the past. I think 0.5C precision may be a good compromise for all of the different time periods. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
<sub>Delivered by <!-- mbsig --><span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <b>[[User:MusikBot|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikBot</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup></b></span><!-- mbdate --> 00:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team</sub>
:::At the same time, I have a question about how the "sea level" parameter is coded. You can see it in [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223987444_Global_Warming_Preceded_by_Increasing_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentrations_during_the_Last_Deglaciation Figure 3] of the paper I linked earlier, but when I actually tried applying it with "-70" it didn't auto-convert to meters, as I thought it would, nor to any other unit, and instead just kept "-70" next to the {{tq|Sea level '''above''' present day}} caption. Can we both account for units/negative values and change this line in the template to something more neutral, as we ''presumably'' want this infobox to be usable for glacial periods when the sea level was well below the present (or preindustrial, for consistency with the temperature/{{CO2}} lines?) and not just for the hothouse periods? [[User:InformationToKnowledge|InformationToKnowledge]] ([[User talk:InformationToKnowledge|talk]]) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
|-
::::{{ping|InformationToKnowledge}} {{para|sea_level}} may accept non-numeric values (e.g., a call to {{tl|convert}}). In parallel to other infoboxes, I created a new parameter, {{para|sea_level_m}}, which accepts only a numeric value and does what you've asked for, above. Feel free to use it. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
|}
{{reftalk}}


== Good article reassessment for [[Earth's magnetic field]] ==
== Cambrian page ==
[[Earth's magnetic field]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Earth's magnetic field/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I've added sections and edited others on the Cambrian page and I've 2 requests: One, can someone with more coding nous than me add a ICS (global) subdivisions table cf. Ordovician or Carboniferous please. Gives the info nice and concisely; and two, there are at least two other Cambrian pages that are now obsolete [[Stratigraphy of the Cambrian]] and [[Early Cambrian geochemical fluctuations]]. Again, could someone with more knowledge of Wikipedian ways delete them. Just to tidy things up. Thx [[User:Silica Cat|Silica Cat]] ([[User talk:Silica Cat|talk]]) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


== Eric & Matthew Gilbert, PhD sites being used as a reference on mountaineering and peak heights==
:The process for obsolete pages is called [[Wikipedia:Merging]] and the page gives detailed step by step instructions. It is essentially a review process, so a bit more involved than just tidying up. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I've started a reliable sources discussion at [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eric_&_Matthew_Gilbert,_PhD_site_at_https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/]] Is there website of any credibility for anything mountain/geology related? https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/ I've seen this [[WP:SPS]] used to support claims related to mountains. Eric has an h-index of 5, and being cited by peers in things like gas valve safety, but not on geology matter and I would for example not cite a geologist for mechanical engineering stuff. I don't think they clear the [[WP:EXPERTSPS]] hurdle for mountain peaks. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 13:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::I've already found that page but I'm not sufficiently familiar with code to follow the process. I prefer to focus my efforts on content creation. The tidying up referred to having potentially obsolete pages on Wikipedia rather than a comment on the process involved. [[User:Silica Cat|Silica Cat]] ([[User talk:Silica Cat|talk]]) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


Also, argument over sourcing for mountain related values like heights, and discussion about the source peakbagger.com at [[Talk:Mount_Rainier]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 05:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
== Changing the standard order for Geological periods ==


== Good article reassessment for [[Geyser]] ==
In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cambrian&diff=prev&oldid=1229069206 reverting] my change @[[User:Silica Cat|Silica Cat]] claimed:
[[Geyser]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Geyser/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 22:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
* The Geological Period pages have a standard structure
I assume that means Category:Geological_periods. I also infer (because I don't know where the standard policy is) that the "standard structure" puts "Geology" first, but only includes a single section "Stratigraphy", the content actually being chronostratigraphy in a very dry and detailed presentation.


==An RM to lowercase named fracture zones==
Placing stratigraphy early makes all of the articles dull for normal readers. I'm sure geologists are very excited about stratigraphy, but we should try to make the articles approachable for non-experts. The early parts of the article should be about the most interesting and least technical aspects of a given period. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
[[Talk:Mendocino Fracture Zone#Requested move 20 November 2024]] may be of interest to editors here, a request to lowercase names of multiple named fracture zones. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 10:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for [[Dal Lake]] ==
:@[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] @[[User:Silica Cat|Silica Cat]] I agree with Silica Cat. First, we have no idea as to whether nongeologists find stratigraphy more boring than paleogeography or vica versa. The best that I can tell this is a personal opinion, which as far as I know, is neither supported nor unsupported by any reliable source. Second, it is "standard structure" / policy in geology as looking at any geological report will show. Third, this "standard structure" is standard because in geology, as in many sciences, the field observations (data), i.e. lithology, fossils, and stratigraphy, are presented before how they are interpreted, i.e age and paleogeography, in a progression from what is directly observed to what is inferred from these observations. Finally, whether it boring or not, putting paleogeography before chronology will confuse people because provides the time frame in which the paleogeography changes over time during the Cambrian. [[User:Paul H.|Paul H.]] ([[User talk:Paul H.|talk]]) 03:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
[[Dal Lake]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dal Lake/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 20:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:11, 7 December 2024

 Main Organization Participants Open tasks Assessment Peer reviews Resources Showcase 
Shortcut

Adolf Peretti draft at AfC

[edit]
Resolved

On behalf of the subject and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have submitted a draft article about Adolf Peretti for review, if any project members are interested in taking a look. I have disclosed my COI on the draft and its Talk page, and will avoid editing the main space. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was taken live. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move of all tectonic plate names - Proposal discussion

[edit]

A proposal to rename/move the articles for Earth's tectonic plates is being discussed at Talk:Eurasian_Plate#Requested_move_6_October_2024. The rename involves changing the word "plate" to lowercase; for example, change from e.g. "Eurasian Plate" to "Eurasian plate". The proposal currently lists 74 plates. Participation in the discussion is welcome. GeoWriter (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RM to lowercase the world's tectonic plates was relisted on October 15. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that Longshore drift, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Good article reassessment for Earth's magnetic field

[edit]

Earth's magnetic field has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric & Matthew Gilbert, PhD sites being used as a reference on mountaineering and peak heights

[edit]

I've started a reliable sources discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eric_&_Matthew_Gilbert,_PhD_site_at_https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/ Is there website of any credibility for anything mountain/geology related? https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/ I've seen this WP:SPS used to support claims related to mountains. Eric has an h-index of 5, and being cited by peers in things like gas valve safety, but not on geology matter and I would for example not cite a geologist for mechanical engineering stuff. I don't think they clear the WP:EXPERTSPS hurdle for mountain peaks. Graywalls (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, argument over sourcing for mountain related values like heights, and discussion about the source peakbagger.com at Talk:Mount_Rainier Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Geyser

[edit]

Geyser has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An RM to lowercase named fracture zones

[edit]

Talk:Mendocino Fracture Zone#Requested move 20 November 2024 may be of interest to editors here, a request to lowercase names of multiple named fracture zones. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Dal Lake

[edit]

Dal Lake has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology&oldid=1261726178"