Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

WikiProject Geology was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 May 2013.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Adolf Peretti draft at AfC

Resolved

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

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

Rename/Move of all tectonic plate names - Proposal discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for Geyser

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

An RM to lowercase named fracture zones

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

Good article reassessment for Dal Lake

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

Auckland meteorite

I know this is a long shot but the article Auckland (meteorite) is in need of expansion for the scientific description of it, by using this source. I'd like to get it to a good article eventually but I don't understand the technical stuff so I'd like to ask for help. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICC December 2024 update

Hey, due to the recent update of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (2024/12) in comparison to the previous version (2023/09), a LOT of articles centering around the geological time scale's periods, epochs, and ages need to be edited to match the new time boundaries. This includes the graphical timelines that display on those pages. See the links for details on which topics need updating. — Alex26337 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:White Sands fossil footprints#Requested move 12 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:White Sands fossil footprints#Requested move 12 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles for periods, eras, etc.

Is there a particular reason for geologic time unit articles being at the adjective form rather than the full noun, i.e. Quaternary rather than Quaternary Period? I was a bit surprised to find Tertiary being the article for the (outdated) period rather than the disambiguation page. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the adjective form is most commonly used; see WP:COMMONNAME. Volcanoguy 16:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is a form of jargon used by specialists who understand the silent "Period". Whenever they say "Quaternary" they mean "Quaternary Period". Is this jargon so widespread that non-specialist readers would also expect Quaternary to only mean the common name for the time period? A quick look at Quaternary (disambiguation) and Tertiary (disambiguation) suggests "no". I think Quaternary is the common name for Quaternary Period only with in geology. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Period" is even needed in the article title because "Quaternary" is only used in geology to refer to the period. In other words, adding "Period" at the end of "Quaternary" is redundant. Volcanoguy 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly my point. The jargon is so ingrained that it is difficult for geology-oriented editors to recognize that the term has meaning outside of geology and that non-specialist readers will find this shorthand confusing. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all of the entries listed at Quaternary (disambiguation) and Tertiary (disambiguation). Most of the entries use Quaternary or Tertiary as an adjectival part of a compound noun. I doubt anyone would change "Tertiary sector of the economy" to "the Tertiary of the economy" because I think even economic experts reading or hearing this would react "the Tertiary what... of the economy?" The difference with the geological terms is that although they can be used as adjectives e.g. Tertiary sediments or Quaternary volcanism, they are also stand-alone nouns in their own right. The mainstream, general-purpose English dictionaries that I have consulted state that the noun Tertiary (i.e. the Tertiary) has two meanings - a geological meaning and a religious meaning (a member of a third order religious group). Geology and Religion parted company a long time ago and the likelihood of confusing a geological subdivision and a member of a religious group are minimal. The same dictionaries also confirm that Quaternary (i.e. the Quaternary) as a noun has only one commonly used meaning, the geological meaning - therefore I don't see how "the Quaternary" is ambiguous and might not mean the geological thing. In geological articles in Wikipedia "the Tertiary" and "the Quaternary" will most likely be wikilinked to the relevant geological articles anyway, so where is the problem? To me, sometimes using e.g. "the Quaternary" is a legitimate mainstream (not niche) widely-used, widely-understood and widely-accepted alternative to "the Quaternary Period", recorded and defined in numerous general dictionaries of English e.g. Merriam-Webster, Collins, Cambridge (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quaternary). GeoWriter (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, you should add this content with refs to the articles! Johnjbarton (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd like to point out the concision criterion for article titles. Like the case of Rhode Island illustrated there, Quaternary and Quaternary Period are both precise and unambiguous, therefore concision would favor Quaternary. Johnjbarton seems to be making a recognizability argument. I would suggest that the shorter form is more commonly recognized: for example, I think more people would search for Triassic than Triassic Period (since most people don't know that the Triassic is a period: I had to look it up to double-check). — hike395 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "Quaternary" is unambiguous, should we delete Quaternary (disambiguation)? Arguing based on our experiences is biased by our experiences. That is why we have sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Prove to us that Triassic Period is more recognizable than Triassic, based on hard data and sources. Given that you want to change the title of many articles, the burden of proof is on you. — hike395 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? I made no suggestion about Triassic. There is no Triassic (disambiguation) page. I've never heard of that term outside of geology

I added the ref suggested by @GeoWriter to the Quaternary (disambiguation) page. However other sources are, well, more ambiguous, eg [1].

I wasn't advocating for Quaternary Period, but Quaternary (geology) would be consistent with many other examples of titles in wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABNOLINK states References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles. Therefore I will remove the citation from Quaternary (disambiguation)
The title of this section is Article titles for periods, eras, etc. and you started by asking Is there a particular reason for geologic time unit articles being at the adjective form rather than the full noun. You then mentioned both Quaternary and Tertiary. I thought this meant you were proposing changing all geological time unit articles from XYZ to XYZ Period (or whatever the equivalent correct time span is). If that is not what you are proposing, I would suggest restarting the discussion (below) with the article titles you are proposing to change and what you would like to change them to. We can then discuss the merits of the proposal. — hike395 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was Paul_012 who asked Is there a particular reason for geologic time unit articles being at the adjective form rather than the full noun, not Johnjbarton. Volcanoguy 23:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not say those things either. I was only offering an opinion as a non-geology person who also did not immediately connect Quaternary (cool math numbers) and Tertiary (many uses) with geology.

I'm the person who should be sorry -- I misparsed the signatures (above): my mistake. Apologies: I struck out my comment. — hike395 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the claim in the Quaternary (disambiguation) should be subject to WP:VERIFY like every other page. You can remove the claim. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., see Rhode Island (disambiguation) — hike395 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-geology specialist, dictionary compilers recognise use of the word 'Quaternary' for the geological period as the prime meaning of the word - 'the Quaternary', like 'the Jurassic', 'the Precambrian' - they are commonly used terms outside of specialists' talk amongst themselves. It's not just 'geology-oriented editors'. Geopersona (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]