Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

Active discussions
 Main Organization Participants Open tasks Assessment Peer reviews Resources Showcase 
WikiProject Geology (Rated Project-class)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Proposal to replace geological period/epoch/era etc. templates with a unified infobox-like templateEdit

A few months ago I tried to expand the Template:Geological period to the epochs, and failed miserably, chiefly because there was little point in replacing the templates that were already there. However, I really do not like the ununified look of the geological timescale pages' templates in the top right-hand corner (example: Tonian vs. Paleocene). I wish to replace the existing template on all of these pages with an infobox-style template that would contain information such as:

-image (map)
-image (life forms/reconstruction of how the time period looked)
-classification (period, epoch, era, stage/age, eon)
-upper bound defined by (is there a fossil or geological process that suddenly appears or disappears at this boundary? is it radiometrically defined (i.e the Orosirian)?)
-upper bound age (how old the upper boundary is)
-lower bound defined by
-lower bound age
-next period (what comes after the division of time being discussed?)
-previous period
-usage (regional? international? outdated? proposed? etc)
-coined by (who first used the term?)
-ratification date (for internationally recognized divisions of time as recognized by the international commission on stratigraphy OR by regional or governmental agencies, if and where applicable)
-timeline? (example:Template:Silurian graphical timeline)
-contained subdivisions (is the article subject about a period with epoch subdivisions? what are they?)

Using such a template would not only create a more unified look for these pages, but it would also encourage more information to be added that often times is not included on the pages in question (most subdivisions of the Cambrian, for example, don't have most of the info I've listed above anywhere on them) or that is hard to find on some pages. Benniboi01 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, in principle. It would be great to see a prototype version: would you like to put one together? Do you need any help? — hike395 (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this would be a really good idea too. It would be great to see a prototype, particularly to see how you plan to balance the display the difference between Precambrian and Phanerozoic time divisions (the latter having series/epoch and age/stage divisions).
For the image, Precambrian times might be a little difficult due to the disagreement around which model of some supercontinents is most agreed on.
I have been thinking about how to go about updating a lot of the Precambrian time division pages, particularly Neoproterozoic to make the pages more consistent overall. Current thoughts are having etymology (which most have in some form) and ratification sections to start off the pages and then fill in what info I can about things like general environment, palaeogeography, other notable events. Cryogenian is a pretty good example of what I'm thinking structure wise. Tonian needs work and Ediacaran could use some TLC. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)=
I also like the idea, though I know so little about writing templates (as opposed to using them) that I can't be much help except for suggesting what should be in the template. Your list so far sounds pretty good --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll start working on a prototype. It may take me some time, but I think I can do it.Benniboi01 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing a prototype. GeoWriter (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've prepared a prototype. Check out my sandbox and testcases pages to take a look at how it's working. I've had a bit of trouble with getting the images to automatically become a specific size when you put them in the template, and I didn't know how to handle any of the hCard techy stuff. I think I've gotten almost everything else down though. I also figured out how to give the titles of specific ICS subdivisions colors that match their colors on the ICS time subdivision chart (linked here). This can be removed if its too obnoxious.Benniboi01 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Side note: of the 3 examples on my testcases page, the Cambrian one is the most complete. Also, I did not add timeline functionality yet because I'm not sure if it would even be useful for this infobox or if it would fit in. Benniboi01 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I would really like to see the subdivisions displayed as they presently are in geologic time period articles, with a vertical timeline with links. Would it be possible to do this with these templates? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I think that can be done. Benniboi01 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Benniboi01: If you want images to display a certain way in an infobox, take a look at Module:InfoboxImage. For a simple example of using that module, take a look at Template:Infobox ecoregion. The empty infobox looks a little odd, with some overlapping items --- I can help debug when you've settled the code a bit. — hike395 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the template and examples. A very nice effort.
First, a general comment about stratigraphy. I want to remind contributors that a constant problem with geological units is the confusion that exists between time intervals and rock units. The infobox title has e.g. Cambrian Period (i.e. time unit) but the "Official subdivisions" parameter lists series and stages (i.e. rock unit). Phanerozoic stratigraphy is fundamentally about subdividing the Earth's rocks and e.g the fossils within those rocks (and correlating between different outcrops), and then secondarily assigning an age to those rock units. Rocks of the Cambrian System were formed during the Cambrian Period. Stratigraphy still works even if only the relative age of the rocks is known and their absolute age in years is unknown.
Here are my comments about the template:
* Title - should not include the type of subdivision - should be e.g. "Cambrian" not "Cambrian Period",
* Usage - if ratified by the ICS, it should be "Global" or "Worldwide", not "International" because regional divisions, which are not ratified by the ICS, are also often international.
* Internationally ratified in - should be "Ratification date", which is how it appears in the text box you included in this discussion on 05 August, but it is displayed as "Internationally ratified in" in your Cambrian example.
* Classification - should be replaced by two parameters "Rock unit:" e.g. System and "Time interval:" e.g. Period.
* Coined by - should be "First proposer".
* Between Lower boundary defined by and Upper boundary defined by, a new parameter "Stratotype" should be added.
* The section headings should be in sentence case.
These are my initial suggestions. I hope they are helpful and I'm happy to discuss further. GeoWriter (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I have another suggestion. I suggest that there should be two map parameters instead of one. We should have map (paleogeographic) to show e.g. world map of land and sea areas during the time interval in question, and map (current outcrop) to show the present-day distribution of rocks that were formed during the time interval in question. GeoWriter (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
seems like an excellent idea to me. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've added pretty much everything I can think of at the moment to the template. take a look at my my sandbox and testcases pages to see if everything looks good so far.Benniboi01 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That really looks good. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to tweak the template a little bit, to make it better with empty parameters, and maybe improve the layout of the big image. I'll experiment in my own sandbox. 17:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! I'd just make the "First proposer" with a small letter, not capital. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal in User:Hike395/sandbox, now with testcases in User:Benniboi01/testcases, User:Hike395/testcases, and User:Hike395/testcases2. The changes I've made are:
  1. A scaling of 88% was previously applied to {{Geological timescale}}, which made the fonts in the geological timescale too small and violate the accessibility guidelines. For the timescale, I reset the font size to be the default for the Vector skin (14px), which makes the timescale more readable. It also made it wider than 20em, so I had to make the whole infobox 23em wide.
  2. To make the rest of the fonts look proportional to the timescale, I enlarged the fonts from 88% to 92%97%.
  3. To make the subheader work when no timestart is given, I if'fed the subheader to only display if timestart is given
  4. I used autoheaders to vastly simplify the header logic.
  5. There were many uses of #if that were not necessary, so I removed them to simplify the template.
@Benniboi01, Kent G. Budge, and Tisquesusa: (and other editors): what do you think? — hike395 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm old enough to appreciate the larger font. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Me too. After your comment, I decided to enlarge the main infobox fonts even larger (to 97% of the default infobox scale, which is already quite small). — hike395 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's a diff, if it helps. — hike395 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I like the latest version with the larger font. Thanks for including my suggestions for additional fields and text changes. A few comments about the latest versions: (1) I'm not very familiar with infobox coding syntax but it looks as if an attempt has been made to display the correct planetary timeline graphic for whichever celestial body, but it does not appear to be working correctly because the timeline displayed in the Nectatian example (in User:Benniboi01/testcases) shows "Celestial body: Earth's Moon" but it displays the Earth's graphical timeline, not the Moon's. It should display the Moon's timeline (as seen in the Nectarian article) in this case. Or is the syntax correct but it has merely not been triggered due to missing input data? (2) The field name Synonymous name(s) should be changed to Synonym(s). GeoWriter (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I like what you've done @Hike395:. I'm gonna take what you've got and apply it to my sandbox. I'll fix the lunar timeline stuff and the synonyms and also add a couple new things.Benniboi01 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this template good to go now? Should we start applying it to appropriate articles? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't said anything for the past few weeks, I'm getting pretty busy with school and all. I think it's probably ready to be implemented. When we start using it, can we leave the template unprotected to allow for edits in case I forgot to add something/we want to add something? Also, what should it be called? Benniboi01 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I made some minor changes to the template on my sandbox page. I'm pretty sure it's ready to go @Kent G. Budge, Tisquesusa, and Hike395:.136.61.217.54 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Benniboi01: Overall, it looks good. One suggestion: can we put underscores "_" in the parameter names, instead of running the words together? I find parameters like |lowergsspacceptdate= hard to read and type. Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll second that, though it's not a deal-breaker for me. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll fix up the variables. Does the name Template:Infobox geologic time sound good? Also, I think I might remove the title color feature and replacing it with a border color feature or something... I'm worried that feature will violate accessibility guidelines somehow.Benniboi01 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Benniboi01: Can I suggest Template:Infobox geological timespan or Template:Infobox geologic timespan ? Time implies one point in time, while timespan implies an interval. Or maybe Template:Infobox geologic interval? — hike395 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Whichever we decide, note you should put it into the tracking category in the code that I added at the bottom to check parameters. — hike395 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kent G. Budge and Hike395: I think Template:Infobox geologic timespan would be good. I'll make the needed changes. After I do that do you guys think I can move the page to the new template page? I can handle documentation. Benniboi01 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you should go ahead and make the template... thanks for doing all of this work! — hike395 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
No problem, thank you all so much for the help!Benniboi01 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to bring a kind-of dead conversation back to life @Kent G. Budge and Hike395:, but I feel like this needs some input. Can I/should I remove the upper GSSP parameters or no? It feels kind of redundant to use, and most of the time, time spans are said to have a single GSSP, not multiple, and this may be confusing for newer readers.Benniboi01 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I haven't a strong preference. There's something to be said for pinning both ends of the interval, but avoiding confusion is also a laudable goal.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I think keeping both boundaries is good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I can see the merit of preserving both boundary definitions, but it also makes the template a bit longer than it may need to be. I think it might be a decent idea to just remove the "upper gssp" variables, while keeping the upper definition variable, if that makes sense/is okay. Benniboi01 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

VolcaniclasticsEdit

Wikipedia currently has a (fairly decent; could use work) article on tuff, a (fairly decent; could use work) article on tephra, and an article on pyroclastic rock that I'm inclined to put some work into improving. I note, however, that Volcaniclastic is presently a redirect to Pyroclastic rock, which seems not quite right. As I understand it, having touched up my understanding from three or four textbooks just now, volcaniclastics is the broadest term, taking in any kind of rock composed predominantly of broken fragments of volcanic rock. (Fisher (1961) "Proposed clasification of volcaniclastic sediments and rocks. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 72, pp.1409-1414; cited by Fisher and Schmincke (1984), Pyroclastic Rocks) This would include everything from tuffs to cinder beds to debris flows, lahars, and fanglomerates whose provenance is a volcanic field. Pyroclastics are rock fragments produced directly by volcanic action and so would exclude many debris flows, lahars, and fanglomerates. Tuff is one form of consolidated pyroclastics; tephra is unconsolidated pyroclastics. This is pretty much how Fisher and Schmincke (1984) lay it out in their table on page 90.

Assuming that's the right hierarchy, it seems to me that volcaniclastics should be the "root" article for pyroclastic rock, tuff, and tephra, with tuff and tephra being subsets of pyroclastic rocks. That suggests the redirect of volcaniclastics to pyroclastics is not ideal. I'm thinking of breaking volcaniclastics out into its own article (I'm happy to do the work to give this a good start) and tweak the others to reflect the subsetting Volcaniclastics -> pyroclastics -> (tuff, tephra) just a bit better. But I thought I'd bounce that off y'all first to get your comments and suggestions. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Le Bas and Streckeisen (1991) unhelpfully don't even mention the term "volcaniclastic" in their IUGS systematics of igneous rocks. However, Vincent (2000) (Chapter 1 of "Volcaniclastic Rocks, from Magmas to Sediments") is based mainly on Cas & Wright (1987) (although also referring back to Fisher & Schmincke (1984)) and fits well with your understanding, which matches mine also. He divided things into primary and secondary volcaniclastic deposits, which makes sense to me. I can see most of the relevant parts of that chapter of the book on Google Books and it looks useful. A separate article for volcaniclastic rocks seems like a good way to go. Mikenorton (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've got a Draft:Volcaniclastics article up and slowly coming into focus, and y'all are welcome to jump in and contribute before I move this over the existing redirect. Unsurprisingly, there are some slight differences in how different experts define the stuff. @Mikenorton, I haven't looked at that chapter yet but will do so soon.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

List of supercontinentsEdit

Could someone with subject knowledge have a look at List of supercontinents? A certain amount of at least recent editing seems to be speculative and/or fiction, but I can't easily tell how much. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a subject area expert, but I don't think Zeelandia or Avalonia fit anyone's definition of a supercontinent. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page. It would help if there was a single definition out there - currently it's either all of the continents, 75% of the continents, or less if the candidate meets some other criteria. I looked at the list yesterday and spent several hours going through many recent papers on exactly this subject. I think that we should use one of the published definitions and stick with it or, I suppose, we could have different lists for different criteria. We might list "supercratons" as well. Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The most likely result of that discussion is a redirect of the list article to supercontinent, which has its own tabulated list. The next challenge is to go through that list and provide sources to fill the "citations" column that I added a few months ago. Mikenorton (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Correlation tables discussionEdit

A conversation has been started at WP:Palaeontology regarding the tables that have been added to Golden Valley Formation and others. Comments are welcomed--Kevmin § 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Banded iron formationEdit

Nominated for good article status. The review came back with a long list of tweaks, and I'm headed out of town Monday. I'll do what I can before then, but would appreciate anything any of the rest of you can do to help. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Multi-component gas analyzer systemEdit

I have attempted to expand this stub article and would like to request someone to reassess its rating. Brynnams (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've bumped it to a C. I'm not comfortable bumping to a B simply because I don't know the subject area well enough to assess if anything important has been left out. But what is there seems well-written, well-organized, and properly sourced. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Morainic driftEdit

Hello. Would someone kindly take a look at Morainic drift? It is a single lined, unsourced article which was edited (excluding maintenance edits) 14 years ago. Last maintenance, or any type of edit was eight years ago. Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a subject matter expert. But the only article I could dredge up in Google Scholar that mentioned morainic drift and was less than a century old defined it quite differently: https://sjg.lyellcollection.org/content/3/2/372.short I suspect an obsolete term for which Wikipedia doesn't need an article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Kent. I know nothing about this field, but should we redirect it to Moraine? We should keep this discussion open for 3-4 days so more editors can weigh in. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
To amplify and agree with the comments so far, the Morainic drift article claims that the phenomenon is a movement process. I didn't find any sources to support such a claim, so I have my doubts that it even qualifies as obsolete. Nowadays, and in books from 130 years ago, "morainic drift" describes a substance: rock debris on and around glaciers; the process of movement of such material is now usually termed "moraine transport" or "debris transport". A redirect to Moraine seems appropriate. GeoWriter (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
This does not seem likely to be a controversial redirect. I'll proceed with it. It can be reverted if someone else comes along and points out something we've missed. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
+1 DanHobley (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thanks everybody. See you guys around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Pluton -> Igneous intrusionEdit

I've put up a proposal to move Pluton to Igneous intrusion, for the reasons given on the talk page there. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Grand Canyon proposalEdit

Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoodoo (geology), Mushroom rock, and redirectsEdit

The Hoodoo (geology) article is a quite well-written article that is the target of some 11 redirects for various synonyms, including Tent rock. The Mushroom rock article is a not-so-well-written article that is the target for three variations on the name. Looking these over, looking over the (not numerous) books I have on hand that discuss pediment rocks and their ilk, and looking through some of the papers pulled up from Google Scholar, it seems that hoodoos distinguished from mushroom rocks mostly in that hoodoos form from erosion of resistant beds over nonresistant beds, whereas mushroom rocks form from erosion of more or less uniformly resistant beds by possibly different processes. However, there's a lot of overlap of terms and with the term "pedestal rock."

I wanted to get some feel for how y'all understand the distinction between the two. The hoodoo article I'm disinclined to touch much; it's a good article and about all I'd add is a short paragraph explaining the distinction from mushroom rocks -- assuming there really is one. The mushroom rock article needs to either be merged with hoodoo (if they are not really distinct concepts) or needs to clearly spell out the distinction and focus narrowly on mushroom rocks and not hoodoos. My tentative take is that they are distinct enough concepts (as I've just defined them) to justify two articles, but I could easily be persuaded otherwise.

FWIW, Oxford Dictionary of Geology and Earth Sciences defines hoodoos, tent rocks, and pedestal rocks separately, redirects "mushroon rock" to "pedestal rock", and defines pedestal rocks as products of wind- or water-driven erosion of uniform rock; tent rocks as products of erosion of resistant beds over soft beds; and hoodoos nearly the same as tent rocks. Not that ODGES is the last word, but just to illustrate the confusion I'm seeing here. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

good question - I don't know the difference (without the comments above I'd have been inclined to merge as I don't know the difference) but that's probably just my ignorance. I'm looking forward to learning the answer EdwardLane (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Input request to interested editorsEdit

Greetings,

is there anyone interested in commenting/reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2? After five weeks it has only two comments with explicit support/oppose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can't take a good look at it this weekend. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

CretaceousEdit

Cretaceous is currently the most viewed Geological period article, getting around 1,400 views per day. There is currently an effort by WP:PALAEO to get Cretaceous to be the second featured geological period article after Paleocene. Obviously most of the Palaeontology-minded editors have no expertise in the Geology. In comparison to the equivalent section on the Paleocene article, the section is quite lacking, and some assistance to help get the section into shape would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Rock formations" section is overwhelmingly about Europe and needs to be substantially broadened. The "Paleogeography" section has too much on North America and contains several inaccurate statements, such as "Gondwana was still intact in the beginning of the Cretaceous" - "East Gondwana" broke away from "West Gondwana" during the middle to Late Jurassic. There is a great deal more to describe in either this, or perhaps a separate "Tectonics" section. Mikenorton (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The "Geology" part of this article should include information on: The rifting and break-up of western Gondwana, the rifting and break-up of eastern Gondwana, the rifting and partial break-up of Laurasia. The orogenic belts along the western side of the Americas and the first stages of the Alpine Orogeny, and the emplacement of Neotethyan ophiolites. The formation of the Caribbean Plate needs to be in there too and then there are four or five Large Igneous Provinces, depending on whether or not you count the Deccan Traps as Cretaceous. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FAR climate changeEdit

I have nominated Climate change 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Salt FlatEdit

Currently salt flat redirects to a disambiguation page. However, the two main topics are salt pan and dry lake, which do not seem to be distinct concepts (or maybe salt flats are a kind of dry lake?), and the articles use many of the same examples. Can these articles be merged or at least clarified as to what the distinction is? Can salt flat redirect to salt pan instead of a disambiguation page? I do not have the background in this area to be confident what the right approach is here. Somatochlora (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Article reassessment requestEdit

Hi, I recently added a lot of information to the stub class article Biogenic Substance, and was wondering if I could please have a reassessment of its rating? Thank you --Wikiuser553 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tsunami-proof buildingEdit

We could use some help building this short article. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Which pages should link to Native state (metallurgy)?Edit

I have created Native state (metallurgy) and Talk:Native state (metallurgy) (do look at my comment on the talk page). It is a stub article. It is also an orphan except from a hatnote link. I don't know which other articles should link to it, so there's a task for those who do know. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My first thought is that this page is redundant with Native element mineral. A lot depends on where you plan to take this article; if the term has a special meaning in industrial metallurgy, distinct from its mineralogical meaning, then perhaps a separate page is okay. But that difference needs to be emphasized even in a stub. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I figured it might be meaning Ore, but I've got no strong feelings on it EdwardLane (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

CarpoliteEdit

Hi. The article Petrogenetic grid mentions "Carpolite", which links to a disambiguation page. Neither of the two entries on that disambiguation page make sense in the context of the article, I think. It seems that this carpolite is supposed to be a (type of) mineral, but I can't find anything about this online. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that this is a misspelling of Carpholite. If this seems a good guess to others here, I'll make the change later today. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Carpolite is definitely wrong. Carpholite is definitely correct - it is in the diagram that the text is describing. I found something else in the same paragraph that should be changed, so I've made the correction for carpholite. GeoWriter (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kent G. Budge and GeoWriter: Thank you both for your input and fixing the issue! Lennart97 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

International Year of Caves and Karst 2021Edit

I've posted this at the Caves WikiProject too: I see that we have now entered International Year of Caves and Karst, a collaborative initiative involving a host of interested parties - is there any interest on any group or individual's part on Wikipedia to play a role by improving coverage of these topics during 2021? cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Geology".