Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

 Main Organization Participants Open tasks Assessment Peer reviews Resources Showcase 

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 this Nature study, I set the mean CO₂ concentration for 235 ppm - and the infobox automatically wrote that this was 1 times pre-industrial - even though the actual preindustrial CO₂ level was at ~280 ppm.

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 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?

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). InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the rounding of |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" 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. — hike395 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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? — 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?)

I should also say that at least for those two periods, these are temperatures from the geologically recent past, <15,000 years ago, where five different methods of estimating temperature are available. If Nature does not consider their temperature graphs overprecise, who are we to say otherwise?

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. — hike395 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, I have a question about how the "sea level" parameter is coded. You can see it in 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 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? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@InformationToKnowledge: |sea_level= may accept non-numeric values (e.g., a call to {{convert}}). In parallel to other infoboxes, I created a new parameter, |sea_level_m=, which accepts only a numeric value and does what you've asked for, above. Feel free to use it. — hike395 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Changing the standard order for Geological periods

In reverting my change @Silica Cat claimed:

• 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.

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. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton @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. Paul H. (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Paul H. These are all fine reasons, but completely unknown and unknowable to readers and editors who are not geologist. If the order of presentation is part of the "lesson" of these pages, then include that information in the pages. For example, label the first section "Field observations". Use "Chronology" or "Chronostratigraphy" rather than "Stratigraphy". State early in the article that its organization follows "any geological report". I don't think readers come to Wikipedia to read geological reports, they come to learn about geology. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

FAC notification

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex is at FAC if anyone is interested in participating. Volcanoguy 15:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Slate Islands#Requested move 14 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Slate Islands#Requested move 14 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at River

There is a discussion about the proposed content of the River article at the talk page that may be of interest to this project. ForksForks (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: On discovery of the 23 nonmetals

Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article?

RfC is here. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2024 Wayanad landslides

2024 Wayanad landslides 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of important publications in geology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in geology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Kevmin § 22:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Black River Formation

I was planning to send this article to Afd as its been badly sourced since it was created. I was reviewing it. It seems to duplicate content found in Black River Group. The editor who reverted gave the reason Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units for reverted when I redirect it. That is not a policy or a guideline, so i'm curious as to why the editor is edit-warring to keep it. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)