Talk:Sedimentary rock

message: This  pooopooo 
article seems to be over emphasizing siliciclastic rocks with very little aboung [[Wikipedia:Signaturt carbonates, evaporates, etc.  Can
this be fixed? please ignore these people they have know idea what they a talking about i have a PHD in the studies of roc
ks   
Yes, yes it can.  —Precedies|unsigned]] comment added by 86.136.82.199 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  overemphasis of siliciclastic rock 

message: What are some uses of sedimentary rocks??? there are no uses for sedimentry rock there are just a figment of your imagination
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.14.78 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUESTION 

message: dear everyone,
i'm trying to write about shale and other sedimentary rocks and i just need a few websites or any info available about these sedimentary rocks. any help about where to go to for info would be greatly appreciated. please reply to madewann [at] hotmail [dot] com
cheers,
W. Mann —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Madewann (talk • contribs) 
this page isnt for asking for help on projects, unless the project in question is the page itself.--58.107.30.145 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contours of shale and other sedimentary rocks 

message: Is clay really a sedementary rock as this article stated before? Isn't shale the sedementary rock type that consists of clays?
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/SedRx/SimpModl.html
/Joe Hill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe hill (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 January 2007
 
:Agreed. Clay minerals are sediments - the lithified product is either shale, mudstone or claystone, the difference is presence or lack of fissility. Vsmith 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shale is deposited clay. 

message: you don't have anything about sedimentary rocks with layers in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.39.96.249 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layers 

message: I miss information about terms like 'softlimestone' or 'hardlimestone'. I wonder if they can be considered as types of limestone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.85.139.75 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUESTION 

message: I'm removing the "List to prose" tag. Wikipedia:Embedded list presents examples of where lists are preferred to prose (!!!), and one of them is logical hierarchies. The bullet list in article Sedimentary presents a hierarchical taxonomy, similar to those used in biology. The alternative presentation would be a phylogram, but: that would be overkill for a simple hierarchy which at present is fairly simple; bullet lists are the most  accessible way to present hierarchies, as ALT text in images has limited capabilties (and possibly length) while ASCII art (the most common way of showing phylograms in Wikipedia) is unintelligible to people with severe visual handicaps.Philcha 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Too often the objection is "satisfied" simply by removing the line breaks or bullets, and rendering a list as text.  There are places for lists; the classification in this article is one of them.  Kablammo 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "List to prose" tag removed

message: how come the names of sedimentary rocks formed by biogenic methods and precipitates arent listed in the beginning? i dont know them and i would like to find out what they are. 58.107.30.145 09:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has added them yet.  If you find them in another source, please consider returning to this article and adding that information here, with the name of the source.  Kablammo 12:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  names of types of rock 

message: Why do sedimentary rocks contain crystals?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.8.85 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  crystals 

message: I made some edits to the intro, and chemical sedimentary rock. Just dropping a note in case anyone wants to comment on the changes. Awickert (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: Do you think this chart would be proper for the page?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sedimentary_Rock_Chart.png
There is also one for igneous and metamorphic. Andrew Colvin (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea if it is placed near the end of the article and not so large as to interfere with the text.  However, I have some problems with the chart itself before it is posted.  The first category should be "Siliciclastic" instead of "Clastic"; "Silt" and "Clay" should be listed instead of the doubled "mud".  The "Chemical" chart needs some rethinking, I'm afraid.  For example, "coquina" is a type of "fossiliferous limestone", and both are usually cemented with calcite and/or aragonite.  In fact, the typical coquina is made of aragonitic shells.  Chalk often has very little if any clay in it (and it is a form of limestone), and coal comes in many other varieties besides bituminous.  "Crystalline Limestone" is usually a recrystallized limestone or a marble.  These rocks are too complex in their origins to be included in a "chemical" category.  That said, I encourage your work on this idea.  It may be that you'll find multiple smaller charts are more useful.  You may also discover that you're repeating the information in the associated classification link.  In that case it may be better to have the link to such schemes rather than try to codify them yourself in simpler charts.  Thanks for the work. Wilson44691 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification Chart 

message: ===Classification/Types===
The subdivision of sedimentary rocks into siliciclastic, organic, and chemical is problematic because many sedimentary rocks can form organically or inorganically (limestones, etc).  I wonder if this article could be improved by including a brief discussion of the siliciclastic, organic, and chemical origins of sedimentary rocks (using content from the existing  classification section) and then making a Types section that includes entries for:
*Siliciclastics
*Carbonates
*Evaporites
*Siliceous sedimentary rocks
*Organic-rich sedimentary rocks
*Phosphorites
*Iron-rich sedimentary rocks
Abandoning subdivisions based on formation in favor of subdivisions based on composition is the approach many sedimentary geology textbooks take and I think it would work well here.  This approach also addresses many of the issues discussed below.Rygel, M.C. (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objections to such a re-doing. Go for it, Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objections either. Woodwalkertalk 12:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for [[Sedimentary_rocks#Classification| Classification]] section 

message: The subdivision of sedimentary rocks into siliciclastic, organic, and chemical is problematic because many sedimentary rocks can form organically or inorganically (limestones, etc).  I wonder if this article could be improved by including a brief discussion of the siliciclastic, organic, and chemical origins of sedimentary rocks (using content from the existing  classification section) and then making a Types section that includes entries for:
*Siliciclastics
*Carbonates
*Evaporites
*Siliceous sedimentary rocks
*Organic-rich sedimentary rocks
*Phosphorites
*Iron-rich sedimentary rocks
Abandoning subdivisions based on formation in favor of subdivisions based on composition is the approach many sedimentary geology textbooks take and I think it would work well here.  This approach also addresses many of the issues discussed below.Rygel, M.C. (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objections to such a re-doing. Go for it, Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objections either. Woodwalkertalk 12:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification/Types

message: The physical weathering and chemical weathering sections under the  clastic subheading are lengthy tangents that distract from the main focus of the article.  Given the presence of a good weathering entry, I suggest deleting or drastically shortening these sections (perhaps some content could be moved to weathering).Rygel, M.C. (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issues with your suggestions above, including the classification changes.  Have at it! QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 14:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Removed the weathering tangents. Vsmith (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weathering 

message: Would there be any merit in combining the Footnotes and References section in this article?  It seems that ~50% of the footnotes contain complete bibliographic information for the sources, the other 50% of the footnotes contain partial bibliographic information and specific page numbers within the sources (full bibliographic information is later provided in the References section).  I personally think that the advantages of simplifying and merging the two sections outweighs the advantages of keeping specific page numbers, particularly since the footnotes typically refer to textbooks that contain an index.  Does anyone have any thoughts or preferences on keeping vs. merging these sections? Rygel, M.C. (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In thinking about this a bot more, specific pages could be referenced using Template:RpRygel, M.C. (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes and References 

message: At the end of the paragraph:  
The opposite of cross-bedding is parallel lamination, where all sedimentary layering is parallel.[26] With laminations, differences are generally caused by cyclic changes in the sediment supply, caused for example by seasonal changes in rainfall, temperature or biochemical activity. Laminae that represent seasonal changes (like tree rings) are called varves. Some rocks have no lamination at all, their structural character is called massive bedding.
Add a sentence:
Any sedimentary rock composed of millimeter or finer scale layers can be named with the general term laminite.
Colin D Langford (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Vsmith (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 20 February 2013 

message: change rock to a clickable link to the rock wikipedia 205.174.116.6 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020 

message: — Assignment last updated by Shaethompson (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: MSU - Fossil Hunters

message: I noticed that the section on chemical sedimentary rocks under Classification Based on Origin is somewhat lacking, and there’s some information I think should be added to it.
The section only contains information on the formation of chemical sedimentary rocks through the supersaturation and precipitation of minerals out of the solution, but chemical sedimentary rocks that are evaporates such as halite and anhydride are formed when water completely evaporates and leaves behind chemical sediments, and I believe that this should be added to the section. 
Source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/sedimentary.htm 4thLawOfRobo (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022