Talk:Geological formation

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Not moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Formation (stratigraphy) → Geological formation — - I think that this article should be moved back to its previous name, "geological formation". It cannot simply be called "formation" because of all the other definitions of the word ("formation" is a disambiguation page). I think that it is usually preferable to have a two word article title than a one word title with a disambiguation word in parentheses. Also, I think that "geological formation" should be used instead of "geologic formation" because it is the more common form of the term. It is not my first choice, or even my second, but even "stratigraphic formation" would be a preferable name for the article. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you want is a change in policy for all disambiguations. Perhaps the Village Pump is a more appropriate place to discuss such a change. As far as I understand, "geologic" is American English and "geological" is British English. Woodwalker (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not positive if there is or is not a significant variation in usage by region, but I have found no evidence that there is. In any case, "geological formation" is by far the dominant usage in the American and British English sources I have looked at, online and in books. However, I would still prefer "geologic formation" over the current name.
 * I do not wish to change policy at this time. You may have noticed that I used the qualifier "usually" in front of "preferable" (I am not trying to be rude, just clear and precise). There are quite a few cases in which following such a naming convention would be a mistake. Currently, I think that this type of naming decision should be made on a case-by-case basis. That is why I made a move request rather than a suggestion for policy change. Perhaps I will make a suggestion for policy change in the future, but it will be difficult to write the rule in such a manner that it will be used properly. In addition, at the moment, I cannot make the commitment in time and energy that a change Wikipedia policy often requires. -- Kjkolb (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deciding on a case-by-case basis sounds sensible and I totally agree with you there. I mentioned policy because at Wikipedia it is often necessary to make general rules (which of course has huge disadvantages) to prevent infighting among users. As for this specific case, you probably didn't look in books about stratigraphy itself. In such books the word used is 'formation', not 'geologic(al) formation'. If you like I can give you some titles. 'Formation' is also the term officially approved by the IUGS for geologic use. Usage is similar with 'series' (not 'geologic series'), 'stage' (not 'geologic stage') etc. Woodwalker (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I was looking at mostly geology books that I own (half a dozen or so) and that I found online through various projects that scan books and put them online, such as Google Books, not books on stratigraphy. -- Kjkolb (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Divisions were formations?
We have this phrase: "divisions of the geological time scale were the formations . . ." How can a division be a formation? I don't know. Maybe a geologist should clean up this sentence. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What does "lithologies" mean in this sense?
"Modern revision of the geologic sciences has restricted formations to lithologies." What does this mean? Can somebody fix it so it makes sense to the average reader? It does not appear to be a real word in the plural. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Citing North American Stratigraphic Code
I've added some footnotes to the North American Stratigraphic Code. It's a start on having supporting cites for some of the basic concepts in the article. But now the problem is heavy reliance on a single source -- admittedly, the authoritative source in North America. It would be nice to have some links to textbooks that further explain the legalese of the Code. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What's needed to advance this beyond Start class?
I've taken a stab at bringing better coherence and completeness to it, without turning it into an article on Lithostratigraphy or otherwise wandering off-topic. Still needs some work, I think.
 * The section on other uses of "geological formation" seems out of place. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; articles describe one concept, not the multiple definitions of one word or phrase. But I've left it for now pending some consensus here.
 * I see there was a discussion some time ago that changed the name of this article from Formation (geology) to Geological formation. I actually find that regrettable. It means, among other things, a rather awkward lead sentence beginning "A formation or geologic formation is ..." rather than the much cleaner "A formation is ..." But I also understand the hesitation to reopen a can of worms. Thoughts?
 * By its nature, this subject is going to rely heavily on a single source -- the North American Stratigraphic Code. I could add footnotes to its counterparts in other regions of the globe. Is this advisable? Suggestions on whose to use? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think the article is currently a bit america-centric. Shall I try to diversify the examples and images a bit with locations from elsewhere in the world? --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add images just for the sake of adding images that aren't from the Colorado Plateau. But there's nothing wrong with choosing a different image showing a succession of clearly distinguishable formations, or other examples of single-lithology and mixed-lithology formations. It's hard to beat the Summerville as an example of mixed lithology (I confess a proprietary interest) but there are other pure sandstones in the world than the Navajo. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed on the summerville one, but what you are suggesting I do is basically what I plan on doing, so once I have the time (probably this weekend) I'll pick out a nice example of a single lithology ^^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and substituted the Mutitjulu Arkose (the formation underlying Uluru or Ayers Rock in Australia) in place of the Navajo Sandstone as an example of a single-lithology formation. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)