Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology/Archive 8

Portals Nominated for Deletion
The portals Portal:Mesozoic, Portal:Paleozoic, and Portal:Cretaceous have been nominated for deletion. Just to restate the non-obvious, the articles have not been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussions are at:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mesozoic
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cretaceous
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paleozoic
 * Your involvement is invited. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A shame, honestly! I quite liked portals, they've just never really been part of an intuitive way to use the site. The only portal you're likely to encounter in regular use is the main page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with portals is that they are fun to create, but maintaining them is tedious maintenance work. The main page has a lot of volunteers who work to maintain it, and they evidently enjoy what they are doing, but it gets a lot more visibility than maintaining a portal on an era.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Impact structures
A significant number of the impact structures identified on Earth are described on Wikipedia as "impact craters" even when this is not how the majority of sources describe them. Rochechouart, Vredefort and Popigai have all been moved, but there are many others that should also be moved, based on an analysis of Google Scholar results: Acraman, Tookoonooka, Araguainha, Saint Martin, Woodleigh, Carswell, Manson, Shoemaker, Mistastin, Steen River, Tunnunik, Gosses Bluff and Dhala. Additionally the list of impact craters on Earth should be moved to list of impact structures on Earth. Thoughts? Mikenorton (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think that describing impact structures erroneously as craters is widespread in a lot of lay literature, and to a lesser extent some academic papers. I'll get around to making move requests for all of these in the next week. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've started the ball rolling with a move request for the list. Mikenorton (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye, even in academia the terms are used loosely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that "crater" is used rather loosely. Having visited the Siljan Ring, I'm more than surprised to find it called a crater in some scientific journal articles, although in some cases they're talking about the original form of the crater at the time of impact. Mikenorton (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed that the categories would also need sorting out. Vredefort (and other similar highly eroded structures) are in subcategories that sit within the category "Impact craters on Earth". Mikenorton (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The categories also need to be sorted out. Paul H. (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Update - I've moved most of those listed above, but left three of them as further analysis showed that the naming was more equivocal than I had first thought. I've also moved all the lists by continent. That leaves the lists by country and the categories. I've contacted user:Ikluft regarding the categories as this would be a major change to a category tree that they set up. None of the moves have been contested (yet). Mikenorton (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What are the three "impact craters" that "...further analysis showed that the naming was more equivocal than I had first thought."? Paul H. (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Araguainha, Mistastin and Tunnunik. Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Flammenmergel
Hi, just wondering if someone could look at Flammenmergel - it doesn't seem to contain much information and could maybe be merged somewhere else (but I'm not sure where). Thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is an entry for the Flammenmergel formation in the BGR online Litholex lithostratigraphic lexicon for Germany. Mikenorton (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at that, I see that the Group that this formation forms part of does not have an article, so that reduces our options. The list of sedimentary formations in Germany might be an option if all the wikidata from here was added in (although the Flammenmergel is not included I note). Mikenorton (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Eemian or Last Interglacial?
I assume paleoclimatology is in scope for this project? I've been doing some reading about the topic of the Eemian/Last Interglacial, and it seems to me that Eemian is really a Europe specific term, and that "Last Interglacial" is more widely used in the scientific literature for global coverage of this period, often without mentioning the term "Eemian" at all. Should the title of the article be changed? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Could be. The last interglacial is known under several names of which "Eemian" is the most common but still less common than "Last Interglacial". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made a move request, see Talk:Eemian. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eemian
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eemian that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the rankings for low abundance elements in the table
Please weigh in on my proposal on Talk:Abundance of elements in Earth's crust to split the table on that page. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Stratigraphy model article
Among other topics I'm hoping to work on for the project, I have a hobby interest in geology, and thought I could do some good attending to the infinite list of tiny, poorly-written stratigraphy articles. Obviously, not all units are created equal but as I'm bungling around with these, a format exemplar would sure be handy. Is Marcellus Formation the best model article to use as far as overall structure and article goals are concerned? Lubal (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Lubal. The Marcellus Formation does indeed look a good model to follow. Not sure you'll find that level of detail on many other formations though! If you're interest in UK units the BGS Lexicon of Named Rock Units is a good place to start.  Silica Cat (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Marcellus and Touchet formation articles are the most detailed ones I'm aware of. I also redid the Big Raven Formation article recently which is a GA nominee. Volcanoguy 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciated! Having some idea what the structure should look like makes this a lot easier. I'm going to be starting with Kansas/Missouri stratigraphy which seems fine, because wow, that subtopic area needs some love. I've been cleaning up Bonneterre Formation, but I'll probably move things around there a little bit before adding more content (of which there's quite a bit, including economic impact), just so it's laid out vaguely like the existing high-quality articles. Not that I'm going to pretend I'm writing high-quality articles, at least not yet. Lubal (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I should note that since all geological formations are of different sizes and compositions it would be impossible to bring all articles about formations up to the level of detail as the Marcellus Formation article, especially if there's less information about a specific formation. Both Big Raven Formation and Edziza Formation passed GAN this month. Volcanoguy 22:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the sub-articles on crystalline types of ice
Please weigh in on my proposal on Talk:Ice to merge content from that page and the linked stub/start-class pages into a single medium-sized page. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Members and supergroups
While I was looking through the stratigraphic unit article I noticed member (geology) and supergroup (geology) don't have articles while the other three types of units (bed (geology), geological formation and group (stratigraphy)) have articles. Does anyone have an explanation for why this is? Volcanoguy 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * my best guess is that all stratigraphy is subdivided into formations and many of those are "grouped" into groups but that supergroups are relatively unusual (see category:Geological supergroups) and very few members are notable (see category:Geological members. As to "bed", there is a lot to say on the topic. Mikenorton (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there proof or evidence that very few members are notable? I understand most members redirect to formation articles but that could be because the member is not notable, few users have had the courage to write member articles or because there's no need for a separate member article; most formation articles I've seen aren't that big so splitting them would be unnecessary. Volcanoguy 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that is mostly why we don't have articles on individual members - formation articles are often only stubs anyway. A lot of our formation articles were created related to their fossil content and there has always been the presumption of notability for any formation article. I'm not sure that I can prove my suggestion about members, just a (probably unreliable) feeling. I've only worked on the Stac Fada Member, where notability was not a concern. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The only member article I've created so far is Sheep Track Member out of WP:UNDUE concerns; the Sheep Track Member section in the Big Raven Formation article being more detailed than the other sections could have been problematic because the Sheep Track Member is only a minor sub-unit of the Big Raven Formation. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Unbalanced hypothesis presentation at Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California)
I see that the "Sierra did not uplift strongly in the Pliocene" hypothesis is presented as a dominant theory at Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California). IIUC, this is a minority hypothesis: it isn't exactly fringe, but it isn't commonly accepted (again, as far as I know).

I could dig into this, but I don't have the time to do it justice. Would any other editor like to step in? — hike395 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If I somehow find the time I will take a look at it. Could be today, could also be in half a year, but it's on the list. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a large of PDFs of papers, disertations, theses, etc. about the geology of the Table Mountain in Tuolumne County, California, the Sierra Nevada, the "auriferous gravels," Ione Formation, and so forth. I have been meaning to use these to work on this and other articles. I guess it is time to look through all of this and see what I can do to revise this article. Paul H. (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there are two different hypotheses that being discussed at this time:
 * 1. One is that "...the Sierra Nevada has existed as a major topographic feature since at least the Late Miocene with mean elevations comparable with the modern..." \and
 * 2. "...large-magnitude surface uplift in the last 3–4 Ma as a result of delamination and removal of a dense continental lithospheric root beneath the Sierra Nevada (46–49).
 * For an example, go see:
 * Mulch, A., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Perkins, M.E. and Chamberlain, C.P., 2008. A Miocene to Pleistocene climate and elevation record of the Sierra Nevada (California). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), pp.6819-6824. Paul H. (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For an example, go see:
 * Mulch, A., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Perkins, M.E. and Chamberlain, C.P., 2008. A Miocene to Pleistocene climate and elevation record of the Sierra Nevada (California). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), pp.6819-6824. Paul H. (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mulch, A., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Perkins, M.E. and Chamberlain, C.P., 2008. A Miocene to Pleistocene climate and elevation record of the Sierra Nevada (California). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), pp.6819-6824. Paul H. (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Mulch, A., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Perkins, M.E. and Chamberlain, C.P., 2008. A Miocene to Pleistocene climate and elevation record of the Sierra Nevada (California). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), pp.6819-6824. Paul H. (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct. When I was talking about the minority hypothesis, I was referring to your hypothesis #1. I also have seen papers on hypothesis #2. I don't know the level of acceptance of hypothesis #2. To make things more complex, if I understand correctly, the delamination hypothesis appears to explain uplift in the south Sierra but not in the north. — hike395 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)