Talk:Exmoor Group

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Exmoor Group 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining activities and the West Somerset Mineral Railway[edit]

Would it be worth adding something about the iron ore mining activities and West Somerset Mineral Railway in the Brendon Hills?— Rod ^talk 13:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes, it almost certainly would. Either of us (or a.n.other) could make a start. There are other links to be made too to existing north Devon and west Somerset articles and one or two new topographic articles might also be created eg Haddon Hill and Morte Bay. I began to construct an article on the Geology of Devon but got sidetracked into the Exmoor Group which has grown to the point where an intended Geology of Exmoor would be largely, though not wholly, overlapped by it. I did wonder whether it would be worth spinning off the formations into shorter articles of their own - maybe in the future as there is certainly more info that could be included. I've made a number of redirects for those searching on informal, and indeed former formational terms (often now 'members') though I've dithered over what to do about the large number of stubs created by User:Abyssal eg Lynton Slates, many of which are former, and perhaps now informal, terms for the formal units I've described. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exmoor#Geology could probably do with a link to this article as well. Glenthorne as a GCR site could get a mention here as well. This paper on geology from Exmoor National Park may be useful to give a variety of references as it purely cites BGS at present, and has a map which non specialist readers (like me) may find useful to understand the distribution (NB uses slightly different names for the groups than this article).— Rod ^talk 18:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would something like File:Cliff at Glenthorne Beach.jpg be useful to illustrate the article?— Rod ^talk 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some bits - feel free to revert if you don't think they are useful.— Rod ^talk 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the picture that you suggested in the infobox - it gives a much clearer idea of the rock type. Mikenorton (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. As regards names - hmm! Geologists like to keep changing the names of units of rocks (bit like botanists in that respect!). It keeps us on our feet but it does serve to confuse both specialists and non-specialists alike. The reasons behind the changes will often result from ongoing research which establishes links between rocks in one area and those in another (and also works in the opposite direction too on occasion): re-interpretation of the rock sequence may suggest that the old name/s may be inappropriate, even misleading - new names are offered up with the intention of making the hierarchical grouping of various strata more logical. However the former names remain in the older literatures and, equally importantly, in the minds of the older geologists for years; it may take a while for the new ones to bed in and the old ones, the traditional ones, are already well-established. I'll often go for using both and adding a bit of an explanation - but as ever there's a balance to be struck between clarity, accuracy, brevity and so on. I've done a bit of that at Exmoor#Geology and added the link to Exmoor Group. Doubtless someone could improve upon it! cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. The Geology of Somerset and Devon#Geography and geology both touch on this area as well. Should Chains (geological site) get a mention in this article?— Rod ^talk 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Croeso! A cursory glance at Chains suggests that its interest derives from the Quaternary deposist on the site rather than the Devonian/Carboniferous though the details, to which I don't have immediate access, may demonstrate a clearer link with the underlying solid geology. Links can always be made - some will be stronger than others. A standalone 'Geology of Exmoor' article remains desirable, developing the Exmoor Gp material but including the Triassic and Jurassic sequences of the national park's northeastern margins and the Quaternary interests. That then starts to beg the question, which often arises, as to whether/how to differentiate between national parks and the geographical areas at their core after which they are named - Exmoor, Brecon Beacons, Cairngorms - all extend well beyond the features from which they derive their name. What do we mean when we say 'Exmoor'? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exmoor Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]