Talk:Pluton emplacement

Lead rewrite
I read the lead section aloud to an unsuspecting family member; she was baffled by the jargon and had no idea that the article was about geology. Would it be possible to rewrite the first sentence to include some familiar words such as "igneous rock" or "magma" so that the context is immediately clear? I'm no expert, but may get round to doing this if I can think of a good way to do it before anyone else does. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would "intruded" be better than "accommodated", so that the target of the blue link isn't so much of a surprise? But your wording is much clearer, and I've removed my tag. Thanks! -- John of Reading (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think "accommodated" can be understood without any link while "intruded" forces the unprepared to open the link. In such context I consider the first word better. Lappspira (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Should the title be changed to "Methods of magma emplacement". A pluton by definition is fully crystallized and doesn't emplace anymore. Magma is mobile and can emplace. Julien.leuthold (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Julien.leuthold, I understand your point, but plutons are emplaced as magma. As far I undertand the magma chamber that will form a pluton is also refererred to as a pluton. Plus, not all emplacements of magma may form plutons. In the end they usual question geologists ask is how is room made for large bodies of magma that we can today see as plutons. Lappspira (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)