Talk:Pressure ridge

DAB transformed into article stub
The DAB page was insufficient and misleading, as a definition was a) missing, and b) much broader than suggested by the 2 given examples (wikilinks). The term from structural geology covers all specific cases and needs to be expanded. I have updated the related or linked pages. Arminden (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * hi. I see you've contributed to the related Fault (geology) article, maybe you would like to add something to this stub as well. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , hi. I have woken the spirits! :)) Thank you for taking over. I just have a few problems:
 * Without sources, this article risks being removed before it even takes off.
 * As an article, rather than a disambiguation page, the main focus shouldn't be in simply listing all the various special cases. Of course, that's a necessary step - and an invitation to elaborate and transform the bulleted terms into article sections -, but it's just a first move, or else - see No. 1.
 * I had summed up what Štěpančíková wrote the best I could. She was very specific, which is good; I could link to other pages, which is excellent; if you think that she's only describing a specific case, please add that and indicate how it is to be seen within the larger picture, but please don't remove the only sourced material we had so far. That's not OK in any way.
 * Red links on DAB-like pages, which this page has became once again once you removed the Štěpančíková material, tend to be removed. Are you planning to write an article on Pressure ridge (seismic)?


 * Here the Štěpančíková material, to be reused rather sooner than later - in an amended form if you wish so, based on sources, but reused it should be:
 * A pressure ridge is a topographic ridge produced by compressional bends or stepovers along a strike-slip fault.
 * Why is it wrong to say "produced by compressional bends or stepovers", rather than just "produced by compression"?
 * What's wrong in limiting it to "along a strike-slip fault"?
 * Is that just a specific case? If indeed it is, which one is that? The seismic variety? Then it can be added there. Are tectonically created pressure ridges necessarily the result of seismic events?
 * I haven't come far in studying geology, and it shows, but I'm still curious. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Arminden, about source reference citations: in response to your comment: "... please don't remove the only sourced material we had so far. That's not OK in any way.", Wikipedia guideline WP:CITINGSOURCES states: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged" (my bold). I think the material in the current version of this article is unlikely to be challenged. Contrary to widespread belief, inclusion of source reference citations in every Wikipedia article is not compulsory, but thanks for including the PowerPoint presentation by Štěpančíková as a source reference for your edits of Wikipedia's pressure ridge article because that source allowed me to assess/verify the claims you made in the article. You had a main definition of pressure ridge as: "A pressure ridge is a topographic ridge produced by compressional bends or stepovers along a strike-slip fault". I think this is unduly biased towards pressure ridges formed by strike-slip faults because it excludes the other types of pressure ridge. I corrected/generalized to "A pressure ridge is a topographic ridge produced by compression.". Compression is faulting or folding, not faulting only, so it is preferable for the general definition. As I wrote in my article edit summary "pressure ridges formed by faulting are only one type of pressure ridge, no more significant in defining "pressure ridge" than the other two types of geological pressure ridge". I also made other changes to the text of the article and I believe that the Štěpančíková source is now not as helpful or supportive of the current version of the Wikipedia article that includes my edits; therefore, I removed that cited source reference. Removal of text that is misleading or incorrect is OK and sources can be removed if they are no longer appropriate or helpful e.g. if the text has changed, even if the source is the only source in an article. Solutions to this lack of sourcing include e.g. request new sources with e.g. "citation needed" tags or "the "unreferenced" template. I have now added a reliable source reference ("Glossary of Geology") to support the three types of pressure ridges currently listed, so the article is no longer without a source. I have no objection to including the Štěpančíková source reference again if it would support suitably worded text.


 * The type of pressure ridge that is associated with faults is the pressure ridge (seismic) entry in the list of three types. I don't have plans to create such an article in the near future but I added the red link to encourage its creation - see WP:REDLINKS. (This article has not been reverted from a stub to a disambiguation page by removal of a source reference, it is still a stub article, so I think concern about red link removal is unnecessary in this case.) This type of pressure ridge occurs at strike-slip faults but also at reverse faults e.g. in Colombia. "Tectonic" can be a vague term and context is important, but its (general, simplified) meaning is along the lines of "large-scale structure and deformation of the outer parts of Earth" - this can include faults and folds, volcanic and non-volcanic, so I suppose some pressure ridges could be regarded as tectonic under that very broad definition, but its use as a descriptor of pressure ridges is probably not very helpful to the general reader of this topic. — GeoWriter (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much for taking the time to answer me in such detail. I'm usually editing in a terribly contentious area, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there you can't make any mistake or allow yourself a slack, or a dozen editors would come and revert your edits or remove the whole page altogether. Disambiguation pages are also very strictly patrolled, I am strongly in favour of adding definitions on DABs which don't have an article to back up and explain the main term, but others "find me out" and remove those edits, because there is apparently some Wiki rule against such material, and definitely against placing a reference on a DAB page. That's how I ended up transforming the "Pressure ridge" DAB into an article stub, Leschnei had just removed the definition and the source, which made Wiki poorer and less user-friendly in my opinion. Even if Štěpančíková's definition, or what I understood it to be, is too narrow it still offered the user a point to start from; without it it wasn't helpful at all, it just left the choice between ice and lava, which are very particular situations. And this is just one of the many cases in which I've been facing this type of conflict, so I'm not being paranoid. There definitely is some rule allowing editors to remove unsourced material if a red link or "citation needed" tag has been left standing for long enough, and "long enough" is subjective. So there you are, these are my reasons for bothering you, but thank you very much indeed for not just improving the stub, but also teaching me something I was very curious about. Now I'm waiting to see how editors react to my related question at Talk:Ridge: "ridge" is only defined as a mountain or hill ridge, which is too large a form to include all, don't you think so? The photo at Pressure ridge (lava) for instance shows a much, much smaller form. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)