Talk:Orogeny

message: This seems to be a rather poorly written intro to a list of orogenies. Maybe some sort of merge with Continental collision which is much more informative and better written would be in order. Maybe not all of the orogenies listed are true continental collisions - for example the Andean Orogeny, but most are. Rename this as List of orogenies and then rename Continental collision as Orogeny? Any thoughts on the idea? Vsmith 03:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In case anyone is interested in tackling it, I thought I'd mention Hudsonian Orogeny is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/Hot/H5. Thanks! :) jengod 07:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing article

message: Shouldn't this read " coupled with study of the distribution of flora and fauna, or biogeography" ? --Wetman 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...coupled with study of flora and fauna"

message: The list of orogenies is in danger of taking over this article IMO. I propose that a new list article be started, leaving this one to actually describe what orogenies are about. Mikenorton (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, split off List of orogenies to another article, crediting the version of this one you copied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, finally got around to it. Mikenorton (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of orogenies 

message: The introductory definition of this article (Orogeny (Greek for "mountain generating") refers to natural mountain building) as having something to do with mountain formation is entirely lost sight of in this article, and no reference to another article where this is discussed carefully is given. In fact, this article gives the impression that mountain formation is irrelevant: "An orogen is different from a mountain range in that an orogen may be almost completely eroded away, and only recognizable by studying (old) rocks that bear traces of orogenesis."
All this is unfortunate as mountain formation is far more of general interest than suggested by orogeny, a technical term probably known to no-one but a specialist.  Brews ohare (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Mountain_formation. Vsmith (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain formation 

message: Of course, I put up Mountain building as a new page, so I'm not inclined to merge it with Orogeny. I feel that "mountain building" is a rather narrow topic, referring to some rather specific eventualities, and of interets to a popular audience.
"Orogeny" is a much broader and more ambitious topic, of interest to a more technical audience, as seen in any discussion of any particular orogeny, say the Caledonian Orogeny. Orogeny is tied to epic phenomena of a wide variety of kinds, and mountain building is part of that, but not the major focus. The major focus of orogeny is the connection of observations of many geographic features to particular large-scale events like plate collisions and subductions, delaminations, and erosion and uplift, all connected to minutiae of geology and used to assemble all kinds of evidence to support the hypothetical events in the orogenic cycle associated with the orogen. Mountain building plays a part, but that is not the point of it all, which is assembly of the big event picture. Brews ohare (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's continue the discussion in a central place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Mountain_formation. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Mountain building into Orogeny 

message: This article somehow has to distinguish between a number of terms: orogenesis, orogeny, orogen, orogenic cycle. How does usage of orogens and orogenies differ, for example? Is orogeny only about plate tectonics, or is it about the detailed consequences like magmatization and delamination as well? Or are these latter just geological clues to help identify a tectonic scenario? It would be one way to do this to include a discussion of a particular orogen (at a fairly distant perspective) and point out how the vocabulary is used, and where mountain building fits into the orogenic cycle, and just which events in the cycle are considered to constitute orogeny, and which are not.  I've made a stab at this, but it could be done better. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary 

message: This section is in bad shape. It is too brief, too narrow , and makes some unsupportable claims. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiography 

message: Ollier and Pain argue forcefully that orogenesis has little to do with mountain formation. Mikenorton appears to agree. Maybe someone who knows a bit more geology can take a look at this article and determine whether it is accurate by today's standards? Brews ohare (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... read the second rather devastating review here Real weird geology in here... seems rather telling. Don't think that book makes it by today's standards. Yes, rugged mountain landscapes are the result of intense erosion of tectonically uplifted and currently uplifting mountain masses -- but as the reviewer states: The latest developments (and by latest I mean some solid four decades of research) in structural geology and global tectonics are dismissed as a scientific fad, while the authors focus instead on exogenous processes as the main producers of mountain landscapes. So let's not lean too heavily on that geomorphologists view. What mileage (professional citations) has that book received in the decade since publication? Vsmith (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain formation 

message: The notions of the role of orogeny in mountain building has undergone recent transformation, with growing doubt as to its underlying significance. I've added some discussion to make that point, with a number of sources. In addition, the accounting of mechanisms involved in continental collisions and subductions appears to be in flux, and the attention of a versed geographer is sorely needed. Brews ohare (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions needed 

message: Why was the paragraph on mountain building on continents being primarily via orogenesis deleted? I can find sourcing for this so it would be better to tag than delete, as it is true: subtract the Andes, Zagros, Alps, Himalaya, Rockies, Cordillera, Japanese islands, Aleutians, Apenines, and others that I am forgetting, and all you're left with is some rifting, hot spot volcanism, restraining-bend ranges, and lithosphere delamination stuff (like the Sierra Nevada, which were in fact also built up before this via standard orogeny). Awickert (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Awickert: The paragraph was not deleted, just the lead sentence. The rest is still there as second paragraph. Brews ohare (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was dumb of me; I like it better the way you put it. I'm archiving this because it was just me missing something. Awickert (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain building on continents 

message: Using "History" as a title to one section in this article appears to be unintentionally confusing. "History" could refer to the history of how man understood this process (which is obviously the intent), or to the geologic history of orogeny (e.g., "The earliest known creation of mountains through Orogeny was ... The next incident was in the XXX period when the so-&-so mountains were created, &c.) Perhaps this section should be renamed to something along the lines of "History of man's understanding"? -- llywrch (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, done. Vsmith (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better section header? 

message: The Physiography and Orogenic Cycle sections could use some work for the sake of clarification or should be removed. Under Physiography there is a list as follows:
Orogenic events: cause distinctive structural phenomena related to tectonic activity - What kind of structural phenomena?
affect rocks and crust in particular regions, and - How do orogenic events affect these things? examples?
happen within a specific period - This is vague, each orogenic event is going to be different.
Under Orogenic Cycle it is stated The orogeny of an orogen is only part of the orogen's orogenic cycle. This sentence would probably best be removed as it is very confusing without knowing the difference between the terms. Mkerkovius (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiography and Orogenic Cycle 

message: Just what is a 'mobile belt'? It is offered up as a synonym for orogenic belt in some sources but the term appears to be used largely (though not exclusively) in discussions of African geology. It describes zones between the continent's cratons where crustal deformation has taken place. Is the term used in preference to orogenic belt because these orogens, if we may refer to them as such, developed at a time when the processes of plate tectonics differed from those operating at the present day? I think it would be useful if we could present the term within this article, not least because it crops up in many others on WP.  cheers Geopersona (talk)
:It has a widespread use, appearing 6970 times from 2010 to the present in journal articles according to Google Scholar, so although I feel that it is a little outdated, it's very much present in the current literature. As much as anything else in my view, the use of the term "mobile belts" relates to the deep level of erosion associated with them. We should have a separate article on this or, at the very least, a section in this article because of the prevalence of the term. I'll do some more searching on this and maybe start an article, if I can find some good sources. Mikenorton (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobile belts 

message: I don't think the quote sourced to 'Mountains in Nature' is especially helpful in the article. It talks of a shock wave which is entirely misleading in this context - a slow, probably spasmodic push maybe, but not a shock wave. The same source also presents other material which is unscientific. Quote:
The collision causing the Columbia Orogeny occurred about 175 million years ago, and as the shock wave moved eastward, it forced huge masses of rock to crack and slide up over its neighbours. This is known as thrust faulting and was instrumental in the formation of the Rockies. The shock wave began piling up the western ranges, and then the main ranges, around 120 million years ago.
Geopersona (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "shock wave" is misleading for a process that takes tens of millions of years and that the quote seems unnecessary. Unless there is a good reason to keep it, I think that it should be removed. Mikenorton (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the removal. The article has no need to rely on "popular" geology textbooks, if something needs to be explained a a "popular" or more simple way we can level-down the language ourselves avoiding thus misleading simplifications. Lappspira (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys - I've removed it; it added nothing of value. Geopersona (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mount Rundle quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orogeny. 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/20110615170551/http://www.geol.umd.edu/~rudnick/Webpage/Lee_2000_Science.pdf to http://www.geol.umd.edu/~rudnick/Webpage/Lee_2000_Science.pdf
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) 10:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following text has recently been added to the article "It is also accomplished by lithospheric rifting either along diverging plate margins (i.e. mid-ocean ridge and backarc basin) or along converged plate margins (i.e. accretionary and collisional orogens), which is referred as to rifting orogeny". The term "rifting orogeny" is very little used and I'm not sure that we should add it to the article based on a single recent paper. Extensional orogens and orogenies have been described, all a result of extensional tectonics, but those are not obviously the same thing. Mikenorton (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest removal. The editor seem to be confusing orogeny with mountain building. Further "rifting mountainbuilding" is also a dubious concept as uplifted passive margins may uplift many million years after the rifting. Lappspira (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, the term "extensional orogen" has been used e.g. this paper, talking about the Basin & Range province. That's using orogen in the sense of a large area of deformed crust. The current text is not, however, talking about that, as far as I understand it. I'll revert the edit and invite the editor to join this discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

text: However, after looking at all their edits, it's not going to be quick or easy to unpick them, as many of them are quite likely reasonable, but to check them all out will take time. Mikenorton (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I've removed all mention of "rifting orogeny" -  is welcome to come here and explain why they think that it should be included. Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rifting orogeny 

message: The legend under the map loses its colours when the article is downloaded as a PDF.
ClarkoEye (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: Rerated to C class from Start class. The article is reasonably complete, fairly readable, and for the most part well-sourced. The chief reason for not taking it to B class is the lack of inline citations in the final section (history of the concept) for which there is a maintenance tag. Editors who have access to the appropriate source material are encouraged to provide the citations and then bump this up to B class. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  C class