Jump to content

Talk:Ore genesis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m tagged page with WikiProject geology
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Geology}}.
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Geology|class=start|importance=high}}
{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Geology|importance=high}}
}}





Revision as of 04:36, 7 February 2024


I have added this Ore Genesis section as a lot of geologists, especially in the U.S., do not study economic geology in depth. That is not to say they are bad, just more popular is the fossils and Yellowstone than in Australia, and more plentiful the employment in environmental geology than minerals than in Australia. I produced this to help out some friends on the livejournal geology community; please join if you wish. All ore deposits are different, each has similarities and differences to all others within the same class. I hope these summaries are somewhat middle-ground with respect to the processes and theories involved. If you disagree, at least do some research first, especially if you are not "authoritative" on these matters.Rolinator 11:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added some gold references.Rolinator 11:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to rewrite this to emphasise the importance of formation processes as opposed to geological setting. Also added a list of deposit types under the classification subheading, so that we can pehaps get working on describing the features of these deposit types in the future.Rolinator 10:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent page. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.130.17 (talk) 18:48, August 24, 2007 (UTC)