Talk:Dolomite (rock)

message: The AGI may be hung up on tradition and precedence and therefore wish to perpetuate ambiguity by the dual use of dolomite. However, I see no reason for wikipedia to confuse readers and prefer dolostone for the rock. Vsmith 01:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term dolostone was introduced in 1948 to avoid confusion with the mineral dolomite.  The usage of dolostone is controversial because the word dolomite was first applied to the rock during the early nineteenth century and thus has precedence. Although use of the term dolostone avoids ambiguity, it is not recommended by the tradition bound American Geological Institute. 
I find AGI publications using the term dolostone and therefore am dubious about the not reccommended statement. Vsmith 01:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This may seem rather petty but the term “dolostone” is not recommended for the rock composed largely of the mineral dolomite.  The American Geological Institute recommends that the term “dolomite” be used for both the rock and the mineral (Jackson, 1997).  This is the opinion also of most European geologists and most specialists in carbonate sedimentology and petrology (see for instance Bathurst, 1971; Tucker and Wright, 1990; and see especially Zenger and Mazzullo, 1982, page 1).  The term “dolomite” actually has priority for the rock.  The mineral dolomite had already been described and was termed “pearl spar” when the rock, dolomite, was first described by Deodat Guy de Dolomieu in 1791 (see the discussion by Vatan, 1958).  
I must also point out that Harvey Blatt (author of the text cited by Vsmith) is a sandstone petrologist, not a specialist on carbonate rocks, Bob Tracy, the co-author, is an igneous petrologist and did not write the section of the text referred.  The authors cited above, with the exception of Jackson, are all carbonate petrologists and sedimentologists.  Don Zenger is one of the world's foremost specialists on dolomite.  
The American Geological Institute is a dynamic organization, supported by almost all practicing geologists in the United States through their numerous professional societies.  They certainly are not  "hung up on tradition and precedence".  
Finally, I would humbly submit that I am also considered a specialist on dolomite with numerous scholarly publications to my credit on the subject.  I am new to Wikipedia but I will try to post my bio and credentials shortly.  
Bathurst, R. G. C., 1975, Carbonate sediments and their diagenesis: New York, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 658 p.
Jackson, J. A., 1997, Glossary of geology, Fourth edition:  Alexandra, VA, American Geological Institute, 769 p.
Tucker, M. E., and Wright, V. P., 1990, Carbonate Sedimentology: Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 482 p.
Vatan, A., 1958, "Dolostone": Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 28, p. 514.
Zenger, D. H., and Mazzullo, S. J., eds., 1982, Dolomitization: Stroudsburg, Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., 426 p.
:The word is widely used in the geological community (including AGI publications) and it avoids ambiguity and confusion. Usage and clarity are the guide, not semantic quibbles by specialists. Vsmith 04:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dolostone 

message: A nice bit of research by RW and I imagine that similar results would be obtained for "Journal of Sedimentary Research" and "Sedimentology", so I must agree with RW on this issue.  I believe that the word "frequently" was incerted at the insistance of VSmith.  What about it VSmith?  Can we drop the word "frequently?"  Jay Gregg 15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not locked in to the frequently term (such a quantitative term) - dolostone is used by a significant number of researcher. Also need a bit of analysis - the 8830 exlusive uses for the term dolomite - were these articles about the rock or about the mineral? The dual use of the word leads to more confusion - and I like to avoid being confused. Vsmith 16:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolostone 

message: RW points out that the word "mineral" does not appear in the majority of these publications.  Typically AAPG references to dolomite concern the rock as dolomite is an important reservoir rock.  Also, AAPG Bulletin usually does not publish mineralogical articles. Jay Gregg 21:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dolostone 

message: Hi Vsmith
I think there is a real issue here. I wrote the section on "Caves in Dolomite Rock" to add to the overall Wiki knowledge on the subject. I specifically included the words "Dolomite Rock" in the section title, as this is the term used by the overwhelming majority of Speleologists and Geologists worldwide. This is so evident in the universal, world renowned book edited by Hill and Forti and published by NSS - The American National Speleological Society. This is also echoed in the publication "Encyclopedia of Caves" published in the UK with over 100 articles by world-wide experts. 
The point is that the wider community overwhelmingly use the words "Dolomite rock" or just "dolomite" on its own to indicate the host rock in which caves have formed. What I had written certainly ties in with the existing title of the wiki page. If anything the title of the page should be changed to read "Dolomite Rock or Dolostone" as it appears that neither the "American Geological Institute" nor the US "National Speleological Society" nor the rest of the world use this term "Dolostone". It appears to be very much a minority group using this term "Dolostone" and not universal as Wikipedia strives to achieve. Hence the sentences which you have deleted, was reinforcing that the speleological community use the term "dolomite" or "Dolomite Rock" when referring to the particular chemistry of the bedrock in which caves have been created. With all alterations to Wikipedia pages, it is easy to delete, but harder to write/add to the knowledge on a page. It also take considerable time to chase up references and add them to a page. Something which is sadly lacking on the Dolomite Rock page.
I would urge you to reconsider the deletions and alterations which you have made.
I look forward to your comments on this subject.
Kind Regards Newcaves (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems folks like to promote confusion :) (per all the above posts) Anyway - I would not object to renaming the article to Dolomite rock, but there has to be a distinction between the mineral and the rock composed of the mineral. It is understandable, but unfortunate, that the geological community insists on confusion :) (but - hey its been going on for centuries :). Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Please don't use article space to quibble about the article name. Do you have any sources regarding the mineral dolomite occurring as speleothems? If so, then let's hear it ... and keep the name arguements out of the article. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caves in Dolomite Rock 

message: As pointed out in the discussion above by various contributors, both the international geological community and the international speleological community do not recommend the use of the term ‘dolostone’. One can easily draw the conclusion that the term ‘dolostone’ is just used by a minority and is possibly localised in its use.
There are a considerable number of highly regarded international speleological publications that only use the terms, ‘dolomite’, ‘dolomite rock’, or ‘dolomite in the rock form’, when referring to karst areas of this rock. Despite this it appears that a minority of uncompromising Wikepedia editors remain committed to opposing any change of the title page to ‘Dolomite (rock)’. Dolomite (Rock) would be an unambiguous and satisfactory compromise and the term ‘dolostone’ could still be retained in the first sentence of the description.
Wikipedia should use title page terms, which are most widely used internationally.Newcaves (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of page - 'Dolostone' or 'Dolomite (rock)'? 

message: This section strikes me as a good poster child for giving undue weight to a minor aspect of a subject. The same may be said for the entire "Caves in dolomite rock" section of which it is part; this makes up much too large a percentage of the overall article. I'm inclined to reduce the Mg ion section to a single sentence, if that, and then take some of the material out of the overly large lead and expand it into proper sections (Description, Occurrences, etc.) to give the article a little better balance.
I'm wondering, though, if there is a place in Wikipedia where the detailed material would be more appropriate and could be moved rather than simply discarded? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physico-chemical importance of Mg ion