Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stratigraphy model article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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. Volcanoguy 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members and supergroups 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove the rankings for low abundance elements in the table 

message: Please weigh in on my proposal on Talk:Ice#Merge all the ice sub-types into Phases of 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge the sub-articles on crystalline types of ice 

message: Are these two articles the same topic? The article on the Bølling–Allerød warming currently begins  which implies that it is exactly the same topic as the Late Glacial Interstadial article. If this is the case, then these two articles are clearly duplicates and should be merged. However, reading the academic literature, the term "Bølling–Allerød warming" seems to apply specifically to the sharp warming episode at the begnning of the interstadial, though I am not sure that would warrant a standalone article from the interstadial itself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've opened a merge discussion at Talk:Bølling–Allerød_warming. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Late Glacial Interstadial]] and [[Bølling–Allerød warming]]