Talk:Metamorphism

message: Redirects: Etymology:from Gk. metamorphosis "a transforming," and "-ism"; from metamorphoun "to transform," from meta- "change" (see meta-) + morphe "form" (see Morpheus),Metamorphism (geology), Regional metamorphism, Contact metamorphism, Hydrothermal metamorphism, Impact metamorphism
--------
Removed redirect because i intend to write something about this. Muriel Gottrop 15:25, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

message: Dynamic metamorphism should not be confusedwith brecciation; the former is a metamorphic event (thermal and textural) and the latter is just a result of faulting. In brittle conditions, you are unlikely to see any change of mineral assemblages, because the rocks are too cool to undergo retrogression. I'll grant that a lot of large fault systems have clay gouges etc, in the upper crustal zones, but most of this is a result of metasomatism not metamorphism. 
Dynamothermal metamorphism is also not to be confused with mylonitisation; mylonites are a textural response to ductile deformation, resulting in comunition via grain size reduction and mineral reconfiguration, most often without changing the mineral assemblage. That's not metamorphism, it's shearing. The other problem with confabulating mylonites and dynamothermal metamorphism is that mylonites don't neccessarily get heated up enough above the background because shear dislocation is shared across a very large cross section of he shear zone. In the brittle-ductile transition, however, heat is able to be focused more efficiently into thin fault zones because the confining pressure keeps the hangingwall and footwall pressed together enough to mitigate milling, and the rock isn't ductile enough to deform via pure ductile smearing...so it tends to, in the rare cases, form thick shear bands of pseudotachlyltes and disturbed milled ductile melanges and fault gouges. 
In these zones the frictional heat is often enough to not only heat the rock up to melt it, but also change the mineral assemblage, hence causing definite metamorphism not just textural reorganisation.Rolinator 04:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic metamorphism 

message: The image does nothing but detract from the legitimacy (actual AND factual aspects) of this Encylopedic entry. The symbol used in the image  (opposed chevrons with attached tails) is not a chemistry symbol for reaction equations. Sources which incorporate aspects such as using a false symbol in a reaction equation screams that the depiction is not true or at the very least, an entry which should be ignored as it includes information that is not from a reputable source. Wikipedia does NOT have to be in the same reference category as the Urban Dictionary, it does so by choice. The Weasel colors do nothing to communicate the meaning without be labeled as the true colors they depict; that of weasels - Dirtclustit (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metamorphism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720035915/http://metpetdb.rpi.edu/ to http://metpetdb.rpi.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I got looking at these two articles, which overlap quite a lot, and briefly flirted with the idea of proposing a merge. However, I think the topics are sufficiently different to warrant two articles, as long as each article does not try to comprehensively cover both topics.
It seems to me that the typical reader searching for Metamorphic rock wants to know about gneisses, schists, marbles, and so on, and where they are found and what they are good for.  A reader searching for Metamorphism -- this is about three or four times less common than a visit to Metamorphic rock -- is probably more technically oriented, wanting to know about regional versus contact metamorphism, metasomatism, and other interesting bits of physics, chemistry and petrology. This doesn't mean that Metamorphic rock doesn't mention these things, but that they are covered briefly, with suitable links. Likewise, Metamorphism will mention metamorphic rock types and their tectonic settings, but briefly, with suitable links.
I'm thinking aloud here. But would appreciate observations on how to better distinguish and define the scopes of the two related articles. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment of how the two articles should be differentiated. I'll think about details. GeoWriter (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Metamorphism]] versus [[metamorphic rock]]