Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

 Main Organization Participants Open tasks Assessment Peer reviews Resources Showcase 

Plate theory (volcanism)

I'm a bit concerned about this article and about references to this theory being inserted into a large number of other geology articles, mostly by @Feline Hymnic:. It has a lot of the red flags I associate with crank theories, but I also see that Foulger is referenced in Philpotts and Ague (though only as a bare mention that the plume theory is not undisputed.) How much of a real debate is there? Is this a legitimate minority view or is it fringe? As one who is only an amateur geologist (albeit with a Ph.D. in a sister field) I'm not confident I have a good feel for this. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the article is attempting to oversell the critique of mantle plume theory by about a mile - for one thing, I don't know of any substantial debate about the Hawaii hotspot being a plume that is contemporary. So yeah, I'd call crank theory on this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Is any material from that article rescuable? Or is it time for AfD? — hike395 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've only added it to a small number (approx. four) articles, two(?) of which were biographies (Gillian Foulger and Don Anderson). But yesterday I did also add it to Template: Hotspots; this one edit is probably what gave rise to its overall linkage count rising to its current value.

One problem in the debate is its frequent "either/or" characterisation: everything is plume or everything is plate. My own geophysics days are long, long past. But I rather suspect that something closer to reality is that deep mantle plume is an appropriate model in some places (e.g. Hawaii seamount chain) whereas shallow plate is more appropriate in others (e.g. Iceland). As with much of the development of the field in the last century or so (the concept of continental drift; then its generalisation into plate tectonics with (e.g.) Vine/Matthews magnetic reversals) this seems to be (as expected) an attempt to model some of the evidence. The proponents (Foulger, (the late) Anderson, Julian, etc.) seem to be well-respected long-term practitioners at respected places. (It's way, way more respectable than 'fringe'/'crank' stuff such as creationism!) But I suspect the associated "either/or; everything is plume or everything is plate" element of the debate may hinder the real substance of the debate.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you have it correct, Feline: mantle plumes explain Hawaii and Yellowstone/Snake River well. The currently overly binary presentation of the mechanisms (one is true, the other is false) is actively misleading to our readers. This really needs to be fixed. The question is --- can this article survive the fixing? It could be merged into volcanism, which doesn't really talk about mechanisms in depth. — hike395 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In which case doesn't the question "can the plate-theory article [be fixed]" become something like "can both the plate-theory and mantle-plume articles [be fixed]"? Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The approach that immediately comes to mind is to merge plate theory into mantle plume. The idea is to take whatever legitimate criticisms of overuse of the plume model are found in the plate theory article and use them in the plume model to show its limitations.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is about the right take. The problem is not that there aren't any limitations or critiques to be made of mantle plume models; it's that the Plate Theory people seem to be on a crusade, which is where all the red flags come from for me. We know, for example, that the Raton hotspot, well, isn't; the Jemez Lineament is pretty clearly a structural feature of some kind rather than a hotspot trace, making it the poster child for the kind of critique Foulger is pushing. The problem is with rejecting all mantle plumes, which I think is the cranky aspect. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Plate theory (for intraplate volcanism) is currently under debate in geological academic circles. There is also, for example, an article about the plate theory of volcanism in Elsevier's 6-volume state-of-the-art "Encyclopedia of Geology (2nd edition)" published this month. This seems recent enough to me and also suggests to me that it is not fringe or "crank". I'd say it is currently a minority view. GeoWriter (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It turns out I have access to the Encyclopedia of Geology at my day job, and I looked at the articles on Plate Model and Intraplate Volcanism. The latter has four authors, discusses the plate model in what seems a fairly evenhanded manner, acknowledges that it has explanatory power for a lot of intraplate volcanism, while insisting that mantle plumes have great explanatory value for a lot of other intraplate volcanism, and generally comes across as very reasonable. The "Plate Model" article was authored solely by Foulger and pushes the idea that there are no mantle plumes, which still comes across as borderline fringe to me. So I still feel in a bit of a quandary on how to deal with this. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In WP, many of us use pseudonyms rather than real names, as per "WP:Account" and "WP:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion" advice about privacy. (I can assure you that "Feline Hymnic" is nothing remotely like my real name, although you might reasonably guess two different likes of mine!) Shouldn't one be cautious about 'outing' "User:SphericalSong" as Foulger here (if, indeed, this is the case)? Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

• Let both articles ("Mantle plume" and "Plate theory (volcanism)") remain.
  • Possibly rename the former to be 'theory' and the latter to be 'hypothesis' (but this point is probably secondary at present)
• Let both articles focus on their own theory/hypothesis and supporting evidence
• In both articles, try to avoid any sense of exclusivity (or binary "this explains everything and the other is wrong at everything")
• Allow both articles have brief sections on regions where 'the other' may be a better explanation.

That's all very hand-wavy and imperfect. But might it be a starter for consideration ? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it's unhealthy to divide theories that are in tension -- a reader would have to read two articles to get a balanced view, and each article may drift towards the POV of the strongest proponents of the theory. I thus propose merging Mantle plume and Plate theory (volcanism) into one article. Perhaps the merged article should be titled Causes of volcanism ? — hike395 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, but I'd pick as the title Intraplate volcanism which, as you see, is not presently used. We can have a section on "Theories" and pretty much copy and paste each article under its title into that section. Then we can do a more thorough integration. The debate isn't over plate margin volcanism; there is pretty wide consensus on at least the general picture on that. This is all about how volcanism takes place away from plate edges. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Intraplate volcanism is a better title than the one I suggested. I like it. — hike395 (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kent's suggestion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of a new article named Intraplate volcanism. It gives an opportunity to more generally describe e.g. the volcanic surface landforms and rock types found in this setting, as well as the proposed explanations of its cause(s). GeoWriter (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Since this looks suspiciously like consensus, I've created Draft:Intraplate volcanism and done the bare bones cut and paste of both articles. We can all work on integrating the material. If the result looks good, we can then move this to article space and change the old pages to redirects. There may be some formalities required (such as a formal merge request on both old pages to the new one) but we can worry about that when the time comes. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The formalities, incidentally, are important, for attribution. We will need to put {{copied}} templates onto the two original article talk pages so their history is flagged to be preserved. And now I'm kicking myself that I didn't properly attribute the original articles when I created the draft merge. I'll have to find some way to do that retrospectively. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is more or less stitched together now. Anyone else want to take a pass at it before I move it into article space? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

sounded like a good plan, just wanted to say - don't forget to put both the old articles as redirects to the one Kent has made, and good job I'd suggest sticking it in article space, it will be better than what we currently have EdwardLane (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be pushing it into article space shortly, on the belief that while a lot more work is needed, it's better than present. Since it's possible that not everyone who has an interest has been following this talk page, I'll go through the formalities of posting a merge proposal on the two original pages, with the initial discussion being a link here and a comment that the merge target already has the full content of both pages.

I think it's possible, perhaps even likely, that someone will suggest that the new page is good but the original pages are useful expansions on those models and should stay. We should consider what they have to say, but I think it goes back to what hike395 said about the dangers of two articles discussing theories that are in tension. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Kent, I saw that you added merge templates to the Mantle plume and Plate theory (volcanism) articles and had created a merged version as Draft:Intraplate volcanism, but I notice that you have now reverted the merge templates and the merged draft seems to have disappeared. Can you update us on your thinking/plans, please? GeoWriter (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Short version: I'm an educated non-geologist (my Ph.D. is in astronomy) whose edits are directed towards capturing expert consensus on geological topics for the benefit of educated non-geologist readers. I prefer to stick to non-controversial topics (heaven knows there are plenty of non-controversial geology articles that are nonetheless not well written). Pardon the language: I feel like I stepped in a turd here, the topic is radioactive, and I want nothing more to do with it. It will not be hard for one of you to recreate the article if you feel sufficiently motivated -- I got little further that copying and pasting the two articles together. But I really don't want my fingerprints on it. See User:Kent G. Budge for more on my background and editing philosophy, which includes not arguing with the real experts. I think I borked that badly here. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you had a bad experience. Was there a discussion about the merge somewhere else? — hike395 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion at the new page. It wasn't nasty or personal; it just highlighted for me that I was in over my head.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

All of us are in over our head when we edit on Wikipedia. The important thing is that we shouldn't present minority views as mainstream academic concensus. This doesn't mean that they should be ignored entirely, but simply given the appropriate weight. Based on the fact that this image on commons is claimed as "own work", I suspect that SphericalSong is in fact Gillian Foulger or someone associated with her, as it is featured in this PDF by her, which would make this a WP:COI, as she is the main promoter of the theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The comment at the new page was by a user who was likely Gillian Foulger, judging from the username. I wish I could remember the exact username. She praised the Plate theory (volcanism) article and objected to having plate theory appear below mantle plumes in the new article, on the grounds that it is the emerging consensus and we are wrong to put it second and thereby distort the science. She also objected to titling it Intraplate volcanism since Iceland and other plate margin volcanism is part of the debate. I'm paraphrasing from memory as best I can in good faith. And I will have nothing further to say about this. As I said, there are plenty of noncontroversial topics in geology whose articles need rewriting, and that's a better place for someone like me to spend his efforts. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course she would. While Foulger is a respected scholar, she is clearly attempting to use Wikipedia to promogulate her minority views about tectonic volcanism, which is massively inappropriate and a violation of our neutral point of view policies. @Kent G. Budge: can I request that you WP:REFUND the page so that other users can continue to edit the article, even if you have no futher involvement? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Since I felt compelled to quote the comment on the page, it seems only fair to make the original available. So I will reluctantly REFUND. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Other issues relating to the page

The creator of the Plate Theory (volcanism) article SphericalSong has rewritten around a dozen hotspot related articles, attempting to promote the "plate theory" and cast doubt on the mantle plumes, see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Many of which cite "MantlePlumes.org" and Foulgers book. I am concerned that these edits do not conform to the neutral point of view and our WP:FRINGE policy on minority viewpoints. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this feels like a POV-pushing effort. There are many more sources discussing the plume theory for each but here it's being presented as if there is an equivalent amount of coverage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

On the front page of http://www.mantleplumes.org/ it has a section stating "New Wikipedia page established: Plate theory (volcanism)". This was added sometime between now and January 11th and now. The Wikipedia article uses the same image as on this page of the mantleplumes.org entitled "The Plate Theory of Volcanism" by Gilligan R. Foulger. This image has been uploaded to commons and is claimed as "own work" by SphericalSong. Other images uploaded to commons by SphericalSong appear to be under laundered licenses from copyrighted books and journal articles that should be nominated for deletion. All of this together makes me suspect that the operator of "SphericalSong" has a close relationship with mantleplumes.org Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have insufficient familiarity to contribute, but the complete absence of any mention of alternative theories or of scholarly criticism of this theory, plus the paired promotion of the Wikipedia page by mantleplumes.org and of mantleplumes.org by the Wikipedia page, makes this look very much like an intentional POV-push by an acolyte (if not by the prophet). Agricolae (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that on the mantleplumes.org website and found it very COI-ish. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If the FTN thread expires and this still persists WP:COIN may be a good candidate in this case, —PaleoNeonate – 04:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads has reverted most of these (thanks for that). They almost exclusively cited Foulgers book or papers she was a co-author on. Foulger has replied at the Fringe theories noticeboard (where I opened up a thread) see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Marquesas_hotspot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: Do you want to weigh in about how fringe non-mantle plume theories are in contemporary academic geology? Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My own area of recent research, such as it is, only impinges slightly on this debate, although the observation I've made of repeated magmatism offshore North Gabon over more than 100 Ma fits much better with some form of pulsed plume activity, with no obvious active tectonics accompanying the six post break-up phases, so I have a clear POV here. My impression from searching recent literature on intraplate magmatism along the conjugate margins of the South Atlantic is that no serious alternatives to some sort of plume origin are being considered. Make of that what you will. Mikenorton (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

My feeling when consulting sources for Vema seamount and the like was, too, that all theories mentioned involve some kind of plume origin. Sometimes with variations e.g the view that the Vema hotspot is simply a blob that separated from the Tristan hotspot, but still fundamentally plume related.

There is a oft-discussed theory that mantle plumes form when, or are influenced by, downgoing slabs from subduction zones sink into the mantle and stir/melt in the lower mantle and core-mantle boundary zone. That is definitively a mainstream viewpoint but it's not the same thing as the "plate theory" discussed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bit late to the party here, but mantleplumes.org is not a reputable source - it's widely recognised as an advocacy website for a specific - and TBH, pretty fringe - point of view on mantle dynamics. Gillian Foulger created the hypothesis, is/was very involved in that website, and it is decidedly non-mainstream. If GF has been involved in that editing, it's absolutely COI. Those ideas absolutely should not be set equal to existing content; but equally, it should be acknowledged and critiqued. I am pretty sure there are reviews out there that do this critiquing well. The problem is likely that our plate articles are quite locked in to 1960s-1990s viewpoints on plume and plate dynamics, which need updating with modern nuance. i.e., plate theory works best in the oceans, it breaks down on the continents, there are lots of subtleties to the way plumes and plates interact and special cases, and all that still doesn't mean it's sensible to come to the conclusion that plumes are not A Thing (which deep down, is where the underlying hypothesis is coming from). DanHobley (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A major problem is the actual framing of the debate. There is a perceived presentation as an "either/or" of all the phenomena being described: "mantle plumes describe everything" or "plate theory describes everything". In some geographic locations (some seamount chains spring to mind) there seems to be exceptionally good evidence for mantle plumes. But it also looks as though "plate theory" might be a plausible, possibly more appropriate, explanation at other locations (let's say Iceland or Yellowstone, although I'm open to correction on those choices). It might be helpful if we could de-couple the "either/or, applying to all instances" aspect. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This spate of edits two days ago seems also like it might be part of the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I just skimmed these (noting that GFoulger is the editor, so SphericalSong is very unlikely to be Prof. Foulger!). They are very fair edits, and seem scrupulously NPOV to me. When you know the background of the plume debate you can see why the editor wants these tightened up, but it's entirely reasonable to do so. DanHobley (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Geology sidebar

A new sidebar - {{Geology sidebar}} - has been created by User:Bluealbion and has been added to several articles. Leaving aside issues such as the spelling of tectonics, the redlink, what is included and what left out and how it is organised, is it a useful addition? Mikenorton (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem bad - but it could probably do with expansion volcanism paleontology etc - might not be a bad idea to link the various geology topics together EdwardLane (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

One concern is that we have sidebars for things like stratigraphic units, and having both sidebars on a page seems awkward. I like the geology sidebar but suggest it be restricted to use on "top-level" geology topics that don't have more specialized sidebars of their own.

The other concern is where a topic has a really nice illustrative image that should be the first image the reader sees. I suppose it's okay if this sits above the geology sidebar, but I wonder if there is a more elegant solution. Perhaps the geology sidebar could have a top title that is topic-specific, an image, and then the "Part of a series on geology" without the Delicate Arch? If there is no such topic-specific image, the Delicate Arch could be a kind of default image. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

When I noticed one of these pop up, my first gut instinct was that I didn't like it. I think this is largely an aesthetic response, but I think the way to think about it is - what is this adding? Any decent high level geology article should have a hyperlink to geology somewhere in the lede that the reader can follow if they actually want this info; in many cases this is extraneous information not linked to topic specifically, and therefore not really appropriate to an article IMO. There are also lots of cases (e.g. geomorphology) where the discipline is easily classifiable a number of ways (in this case, geography, but plenty of other examples), and the sidebar is privileging geology above these others for the reader. Finally - how is what page receives the template determined?

Having knocked about geo-WP for a LOT of years now, my recollection is that once every few years someone designs and adds one of these, it survives for a few months until enough editors notice them and are irritated by them, it then gets gradually removed piecemeal from individual articles, then finally one of these discussions happens again and we end up removing it entirely largely based on the arguments above. I suspect we may be about to enter another one of these cycles...DanHobley (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, DanHobley. I had not thought of the case of a topic that is not purely geology. That tends to shift my thinking a bit against this sidebar. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We already have a a footer {{Geology}}. Such footers are ideal for top-down navigation of a broad topic, while also avoiding the "in your face" nature of sidebars. Given that we have the footer, what additional benefit does a similar, indeed potentially near-equivalent, sidebar bring? Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for reference, I just removed the one of these over at Geomorphology. DanHobley (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the template as I only access WP via a PC - maybe it might be intrusive for someone using a smart phone. And just how many users scroll right down the page to read the footer? I think that the template may be very useful in getting the general public more interested in the science. Bahudhara (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Lava and magma

I can't seem to stop dropping grenades. Blame it on the COVID keeping me at home with time on my hands to fuss over Wikipedia.

Some time back I worked over the Lava article, making sure everything was properly sourced and expanding some on the chemical and physical range of properties of lavas. I'm now looking at Magma. To give some perspective, the article TOC for Lava is:

1	Properties of lava
1.1	Composition
1.2	Rheology
1.3	Thermal
2	Lava morphology
3	Lava landforms
4	Lava fountains
5	Hazards
6	Towns destroyed by lava flows
7	Towns damaged by lava flows
8	Towns destroyed by tephra

while that for Magma is

1	Physical and chemical properties of magma
1.1	Temperature
1.2	Density
1.3	Composition
2	Origins of magma by partial melting
3	Evolution of magmas
4	Migration and solidification of magmas
5	Magma usage for energy production

I've simplified these a bit. The relevant point is that most of each article is unique to that article, and the division between articles makes a lot of sense -- but the sections on properties of lava/magma are almost a complete overlap. It would be nice to find an elegant way to only have to write this information once, but off-hand I don't know what the best approach would be.

I do notice that almost everything in Lava that does not overlap would apply as well to Lava flow -- the latter is currently a redirect to Lava. If we moved Lava to Lava flow, the properties section of Lava flow could be reduced to little more than "Lava is magma that has reached the surface and degassed" with either a Main or See Also pointing the reader to the Magma article (or the Properties section of Magma). Another possibility may be to use template:Excerpt to pull that section from Magma directly into Lava, but I haven't any experience with that.

Would appreciate your thoughts. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Some additional data (which I really ought to have looked up to begin with):

Magma gets 25,293 page hits per month and has 6 redirects to it.

Lava gets 40,540 page hits per month and has 30 redirects to it.

Lava flow, which is a redirect to Lava, gets 740 page hits per month and has no redirects. (The latter is kind of meaningless; there are bots that automatically reduce double redirects.)

While moving Lava to Lava flow and replacing the properties section with a link to Magmas seems like an elegant solution, the much higher volume of traffic to Lava over Lava flow makes that hard to recommend. I note that Melt (geology) is a redirect to Magma, and it's tempting to put all the "Properties" in a new article by that name that is linked by Lava and Magma. However, that seems a bit awkward.

But to add one more monkey to the circus: Volcano (82,848 hits/month, 31 redirects) also has a somewhat briefer section on properties of melts that is highly redundant with the discussions in Lava and Magma. So I think we would really benefit from a central discussion of melt composition and properties that can be referenced by all three articles. My leanings at present are to put that in Magma and link it from the other two, but I'm open to either a separate article (Melt (geology), perhaps) that can be referenced or to experimenting with the Template:Extract functionality.

The advantage of Template:Extract is that I think there are some Wikistatistics showing that readers don't follow links very often. The discussion of melt composition and properties is a pretty key element of all three topics and a strong case can be made that it should be integral to their articles.

Apologies for thinking aloud at y'all. This seems like the right place for it, though. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think moving Lava to Lava flow would create a problem because not all lava forms lava flows; much lava forms pyroclastic material, e.g. ash fall. GeoWriter (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the distinction between "magma" and "lava" is slightly artificial. "Lava is degassed magma that has reached the surface" is the best I can come up with. And maybe even the "degassed" part is off, since magma begins degassing well below the surface and the process does not complete until the stuff is fully depressurized above ground. The two geologic dictionaries I have in my library seem to boil the difference down to the word "extrusive". But we're not going to settle that issue at Wikipedia.

The hit count alone argues against moving Lava, since Wikipedia should put its targets where the readers are aiming. I am about 90% convinced, though, that the central discussion of melt properties and composition should go into Magma and other articles should reference it in some way. In any case, copying the best of the Lava version of this discussion to Magma does no harm, is probably an improvement, and is a good basis for whatever the next step is. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Much as the programmer inside me is screaming, I don't hate the idea of simply duplicated text. It is more practical for users as discussed above, and if it diverges a bit, so be it... Good ideas can be copied from one to the other at a later date, if anyone is highly motivated.DanHobley (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Basal portion

Ciolo (Apulia)#Geology states Ciolo is mostly formed by a basal portion[disambiguation needed], wich includes limestones and bioclastic limestones..., where 'basal portion' simply links to the disambiguation page basal. What does this "basal portion" mean (if it means anything at all)? Lennart97 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Basal in this context likely means the lower part of the stratigraphic succession, but the entire geology section seems like it was either badly translated or by someone who can't speak English so its hard to put into context where "basal" would fit in the sentence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thanks for the reply. The best I can do for now is to remove the unhelpful link to basal and slap a Template:Clarify on it, which I'll do. Lennart97 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Springstone

I've recently created the article Springstone. Sources differ as to whether this is a form of chlorite or serpentinite mineral. I've gone with chlorite, since the sources giving this include print works, not just auction sites, and because other sources describe areas which have deposits of both springstone and serpentinite, suggesting the two are distinct. However, I'd greatly appreciate input from editors with expertise in this field who can help ensure to get this right. -- The Anome (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of the substance before, but then there's a lot I've never heard of. It's not mentioned in either of my geologic dictionaries. The only mentions that Google Scholar dredges up are to its use by Zimbabwean sculptors, and these are not particularly helpful in identifying it. I do note that chlorite and serpentine are both greenschist facies minerals, meaning that they can appear together in the same rock, so perhaps the answer to "Is springstone serpentinite or chlorite?" is "Yes." --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove the reference to chlorite in the article for now, and hope that the wiki process will do its magic in the longer run. -- The Anome (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've found various references to "black serpentine" in old journals, but nothing to relate this to Zimbabwean springstone. -- The Anome (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

In this 2013 paper on the conservation of contemporary stone sculpture in Zimbabwe, it says "The most popular rock is serpentine whose varieties include springstone, leopard rock, cobalt stone, lepidolite, golden serpentine, fruitstone and Masvingo serpentine". I wonder what "fruitstone" looks like? Mikenorton (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Uhhhhh... lepidolite is a true mica, not a variety of serpentine, so this quote is already a little suspect! DanHobley (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Geology of the Death Valley area

I have nominated Geology of the Death Valley area 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. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey

Hello,

I hope I have not been too presumptuous in removing your project from the talk page of the article. If this is wrong please could you explain on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey/archive1 how I can improve the article re geology. For example if you are aware of future expansion of Batı Raman oil field. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Mount St. Helens 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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Jurassic listed at peer review

I have massively expanded the Jurassic article since December, so I've nominated it for peer review. If you have any comments, please send them to Wikipedia:Peer review/Jurassic/archive1. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That's some really impressive work. I did a couple minor tweaks, but I'll comment at peer review if anything else catches my eye. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Pangaea

Pangaea is one of our most viewed articles, receiving nearly 1 million views last year. (For a comprehensive list of the top 1000, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Popular pages). There are large amounts of uncited text. The problem with writing about Pangea, as I've learned with Jurassic, is that it covers such a large span of time that it feels difficult to know what to write about, and the need to cover the topic comprehensively but succinctly. The article should cover the asssembly and collapse of Pangea from a geological perspective, but I don't know how much technical detail should be included, given the likely lay audience. I think Kent G. Budge has done excellent work on the life section, but I wonder if a more comprehensive treatment would be better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure the life section needs too much more expansion. This seems like an article that should emphasize plate tectonics, since the breakup of Pangaea has historically been so important in the development of tectonic theory. I think the first thing is to make sure that section is properly sourced. At present, it's the most poorly sourced part of the article, and it should really be the most solid part. Also, though I tried to organize it a bit for easier readability, it's still a bit of a spew of facts that doesn't (yet) tell a good story. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that the information would be best conveyed by a series of sequential diagrams showing the positions of the world's continents, with the collisional events emphasised. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The task is to find or create such graphics. It would be best to have graphics prepared the same way, so it's not a hodgepodge of images in very different styles for each stage. I'll see if I can't find a way to generate images that I can put in the public domain. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the best approach to create clean palaeomaps is to get multiple maps from the same time period that have been reconstructed by different authors and include the parts where they agree but exclude or rely on more regional maps where they don't. For maps that focus on the collisions I think loosely redrawing a pre-existing map is ok, as is done in research papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Anything I do will in some sense be a loose redrawing of pre-existing maps. :) --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Aaaand ... here's the first map. Crude enough to not infringe copyright, but a reasonable representation of Torsvik and Cock's reconstruction. Tell me what you think before I make the effort to generate more. Incidentally, Torsvik has a software package downloadable from his web site at Cambridge for producing globe maps. Alas, I could not get it to work on my Ubuntu system -- it had a slew of package dependencies that no one site could all resolve and I finally gave up in frustration. Also not sure if the format is really what is needed or if you can actually make PNGs from it. Or what licensing terms would apply.

If this seems okay, then I plan for subsequent maps to show orogenies as red zones. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A key should probably be provided in the file description if you're going to have letter abbreviations. While it is a good start, imo it looks somewhat rough with the pixellated edges, and I think it would look better smoothed and vectorised using something like Inkscape, which I believe can be installed on ubuntu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding the key to the file description is straightforward. Inkscape: Turns out it's already installed on my system, though I've never used it. Another package to learn ... sigh. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I am asking too much. Inkscape is very easy to get your head around, I wouldn't worry about it. Other minor points:

• Torsvik and Cocks 2017 should be cited in full
• The size of the Ocean labels could be increased for enhanced legibility at thumbnail resolution.

Otherwise I think it's pretty good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not too much. The latest version of GIMP is kind of a disaster, so this is a good time to learn a different tool. Citation, like legend, is easy to edit. Getting the ocean labels right might require abbreviations, but possibly worth it for legibility. Will have a second attempt up hopefully soon. Perhaps not til Saturday -- tomorrow is the 30th annual Kent Is No Longer 29 hike. :) --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

New rendering up. File information hasn't been updated yet; I'll worry about that once the basic rendering is satisfactory. What do you think? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a substantial improvement. I imagine the tectonic reconstructions for the Cambrian are pretty fragmentary, but I assume you intend to include plate boundaries and subduction margins in the more recent reconstructions for which the tectonics are more constrained? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my source (Torsvik and Cocks) makes no attempt to place spreading centers this early. They show some plate boundaries but I was inclined to leave them out until the plates actually rift. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Another.

Can Avalonia be labelled? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Also making this a gallery.

• 
  Paleogeography of Earth in the late Cambrian, around 490 Ma
• 
  Paleogeography of Earth in the middle Silurian, around 430 Ma
• 
  Paleogeography of Earth in the late Carboniferous, around 210 Ma
• 
  Paleogeography of the Earth at the Permian-Triassic boundary, around 250 Mya

I think that if you're going to draw them "blobby" like this then you should round off the sharp edges. Also where is the triple junction in Panthalassa between the Izanagi, Farallon and Phoenix plates? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't included any spreading centers. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was getting mixed up remembering about the genesis of the Pacific Plate. I would include the standard triangles to denote the location of subduction margins. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I will, when I can figure out how to get Inkscape to do it. I'm thinking I might be able to add spreading centers as thinner green lines. So you think the continent lines would be better either all blocky or all blobby? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For the subduction margins It's probably easiest to copy paste triangles and then rotate them to the orientation of the line. The only map currently that I think is too jagged is the third one one at 310 mya, the other 2 look fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The latest one looks really good. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to go work on Shale for a while and let these ripen a little, then come back, see if I want to touch them up (or add more time snapshots) and then go to work on Pangea. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

First appearance datum

Hello all,

I've tried to clean up the First appearance datum article a little, just so it seems clearer and has some references to back the content up. I'd appreciate any input you all might have as to what could be added or changed. In particular, I'm not sure if information about the related concept Last appearance datum can also be included in this article. Or, similarly, if I can link to List of index fossils, which seems like another similar concept--I'm just not sure if it is relevant or helpful to link to it from the First appearance datum page. Would be glad to hear any of your thoughts about this. Thanks, RVSNS (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ruegen Formations

Are Rügen White Chalk Formation and Rugen Formation the same thing? The articles are uniformly uninformative and identical (a geologic formation from the Cretaceous in Germany). The references are not usable, since they reference the front page of a website instead of a specific webpage containing information. They were created by the same user at the same point in time. They both appear on List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Germany -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Both articles appear to have been generated semi-robotically from the Fossilworks database. There is a "Not to be confused with the Rugen Formation" hatnote on the Rügen White Chalk Formation article, but I wouldn't put too much trust on that. Let me google around a bit and see if I can get a more definitive answer.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar turns up no hits for either name. However, there are many papers describing the geology of Rugen Island, and many of these mention the presence of chalk. My guess is that these are informal unit names. If so, they lack notability for their own articles and should probably be folded into the discussion of geology at the Rügen article.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe the native name in German is Rügener Kreide, and it has a separate (and quite substantial) article on dewiki Rügener Kreide. According to the article it is lithostratigraphically described as the Rugen Member of the Hemmoor Formation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's an unusually well-characterized formal member, I think that establishes notability for English Wiki. Certainly there are scads of research papers on the geology of Rügen that mention its chalk beds. I think the right thing is to translate over the German article, probably under the title Rügen Chalk, and redirect the two existing articles to it.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Rügen Chalk is up and duly attributed to the German article. All welcome to assist in translating. I have a mild preference for copying the raw original, then using a translating tool a paragraph at a time, when not fluent in the original language. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

A rough translation has been done. THere are a couple of terms I'm uncertain of: Schlämmkreide = "mud chalk", "whitewashed chalk", "precipitated chalk", or "washed chalk"? Also Tagebau = open-cast mine, open-pit mine, strip mine? Please look it over before I move it into article space. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Requested move 7 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Requested move 7 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Science articles needing expert attention

You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:

• Environmental radioactivity
• 16 articles primary about other disciplines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Template:Life timeline and MOS:SMALLFONT

There is a discussion of how and whether to modify {{Life timeline}} (a graphical timeline that shows the history of life over the last 4500 Ma) to obey the accessibility guideline to avoid small fonts. You're welcome to join in the discussion here. — hike395 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Need an opinion from a geologist please?

The question is fairly simple and straightforward: while attempting to improve the article on Dashrath Manjhi we are trying to identify the type of rock formation that Gehlaur Ganj (side view) is. Is it a Horst, is it a stretch of lava that filled the crack in the crust and then solidified (somewhat reminiscing Castle Rock (Edinburgh)), or is it something else (and what is the scientific name for it)? Any clarification on the matter would be highly appreciated! -- Wesha (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wesha. Yep, that's pretty easy to respond to! Looking at the local Geological Survey of India 1:250,000 map (here, should be citable), that landform is shown as being a quartzite ridge, composed of Middle Proterozoic (about 1.6 to 1 billion years ago) quartzite of the Munger Group (unit 'Mq' in the map). It is a ridge formed by differential weathering between different layers of a metamorphosed sediment sequence, with the very hard and resistant quartzite (originally a sandstone) remaining relatively intact, and the much softer rock that is was interlayered with (phyllite and schist, formerly shales and mudstones; unit 'Ms' in the map) weathering away. The low ground caused by this weathering has been filled by much younger (Late Pleistocene to Holocene, that's less than 1 million years ago right up until present) silt and clay, through which the ancient quartzite sticks up, forming a ridge. It is a pretty common geometry that can form when you have a hard layer within a sedimentary sequence. Hope that helps? Cheers. Pyrope 19:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

GAR for 2008 Sichuan earthquake

2008 Sichuan earthquake, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Hog Farm _Talk 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure

I have been making edits to this article Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact as part of an University assignment. My objective is to improve this article from its status as a stub, and also improve its assessment rating on this WIkiproject. This article primarily discusses a proposed impact structure in the middle of Australia, and the evidence for this theory. The theory was coined and popularised by Daniel Connelly.

I would like this article to be reviewed and rated by members of this Wikiproject.

I have also posted this article on [Australia]. Thanks JeffreyYin333 (talk)

To be quite frank, I'm not sure we should even have an article at all. It seems to be an idea that hasn't gained any traction in reliable sources, with the only sources proposing that this supposed impact crater exists being conference abstracts by the originators of the theory, which haven't been peer reviewed or subject to any scientific scrutiny. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Serious concerns about this had already been raised at the article 8 years ago by @Paul H.:, see Talk:Massive_Australian_Precambrian/Cambrian_Impact_Structure#This Article Desperately Needs Reliable Secondary Sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of questionable impact crater proposals, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian crater. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Stone stripping

Does anyone know what "stone stripping" related to periglaciation is? I came across this phrase in a source but couldn't find a definition or a WP article for it. Volcanoguy 17:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Could it refer to stone stripes? I have a couple of sources that mention these, and they appear to be a feature of patterned ground associated with permafrost. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It turns out "stripping" was just a typo on my part. I looked at the source again and it says stone striping. Volcanoguy 19:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

For an example, download and look at The Characteristics and Genesis of Stone Stripes in North Central Oregon. Paul H. (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we have a redirect from Stone striping to an appropriate article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I made that redirect awhile ago. Volcanoguy 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced Conundrum

Stepped profile has been unsourced for some years- and the term definitely exists in context of rivers as mentioned in the article from some brief Googling.

The weird thing is that all the articles linking to it are about architecture or mountains- not about rivers/water-bodies. Should I find another target for those articles and add the river-based sources to this one? Or is there a similar article about steps in nature/design/engineering this could merge or be improved by? I feel like the term "stepped profile" might be too multi-disciplinary (math, geology, etc.) that I'm struggling to figure out just how to fulfil basic notability! Help? Estheim (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

In rivers, a stepped profile is just a particular kind of "longitudinal profile", something that doesn't have an article itself. Knickpoints are related as they form the steep parts of the steps. I'm not sure that it justifies a separate article. Mikenorton (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Searched for "stepped profile" and "longitudinal profile" and fluvial in google scholar and found numerous references to stepped profiles of rivers. However, it seems like that type of "stepped profile" could be easily merged with and should be discussed in the Knickpoint article. It seems to be there are too many types of "stepped profiles" in the humanities and basic and other sciences (math, electronics, etc.), that it is impractical and likely confusing to have a single artcle about them. If anything, "stepped profile" is a descriptive term, much like "cherry red" that can be applied to any number of objects or contexts Paul H. (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That text is extremely garbled, and largely lacking in information content. A lot of it is imprecise at best and wrong at worst. My first instinct would be a redirect to knickpoint, or if as you are suggesting there are more prevalent uses of the term in other disciplines, just AfD it so we stop squatting on the name. Long profile is another matter. Having a quality article on that would be very valuable. ETA: i.e., I am proposing this is a content fork on Knickpoint, and also not notable, for the purposes of an AFD. DanHobley (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)