Talk:Geological formation

message: We have this phrase: "divisions of the geological time scale were the formations . . ." How can a division be a formation? I don't know. Maybe a geologist should clean up this sentence. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions were formations? 

message: "Modern revision of the geologic sciences has restricted formations to lithologies." What does this mean? Can somebody fix it so it makes sense to the average reader? It does not appear to be a real word in the plural. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "lithologies" mean in this sense? 

message: I've added some footnotes to the North American Stratigraphic Code. It's a start on having supporting cites for some of the basic concepts in the article. But now the problem is heavy reliance on a single source -- admittedly, the authoritative source in North America. It would be nice to have some links to textbooks that further explain the legalese of the Code. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing North American Stratigraphic Code 

message: I've taken a stab at bringing better coherence and completeness to it, without turning it into an article on Lithostratigraphy or otherwise wandering off-topic. Still needs some work, I think.
* The section on other uses of "geological formation" seems out of place. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; articles describe one concept, not the multiple definitions of one word or phrase. But I've left it for now pending some consensus here.
* I see there was a discussion some time ago that changed the name of this article from Formation (geology) to Geological formation. I actually find that regrettable. It means, among other things, a rather awkward lead sentence beginning "A formation or geologic formation is ..." rather than the much cleaner "A formation is ..." But I also understand the hesitation to reopen a can of worms. Thoughts?
* By its nature, this subject is going to rely heavily on a single source -- the North American Stratigraphic Code. I could add footnotes to its counterparts in other regions of the globe. Is this advisable? Suggestions on whose to use? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think the article is currently a bit america-centric. Shall I try to diversify the examples and images a bit with locations from elsewhere in the world? --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't add images just for the sake of adding images that aren't from the Colorado Plateau. But there's nothing wrong with choosing a different image showing a succession of clearly distinguishable formations, or other examples of single-lithology and mixed-lithology formations. It's hard to beat the Summerville as an example of mixed lithology (I confess a proprietary interest) but there are other pure sandstones in the world than the Navajo. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed on the summerville one, but what you are suggesting I do is basically what I plan on doing, so once I have the time (probably this weekend) I'll pick out a nice example of a single lithology ^^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and substituted the Mutitjulu Arkose (the formation underlying Uluru or Ayers Rock in Australia) in place of the Navajo Sandstone as an example of a single-lithology formation. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's needed to advance this beyond Start class?