Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology#Playa and a CfD discussion

I found this article while adding short descriptions. Seems like it got lost to time, thought I'd leave it here in case there's an eager geologist willing to take on such a task. MediaKyle (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The main category of this article is :Category:Geologic formations which is inconsistent with the article title (geologic instead of geological). Is geologic or geological more appropriate? Volcanoguy 01:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:These are synonyms. The Google ngram viewer [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=geologic%2Cgeological&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 results] amusingly looks like "geologic" was set to conquer "geological" until it suddenly fell out of fashion. Geologic formation redirects to Geological formation. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::By the looks of the Google ngram viewer results, :Category:Geologic formations and its subcategories should probably be moved to :Category:Geological formations since that seems to be the one most commonly used. Volcanoguy 05:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Hike395}} What is your take on this? The Google ngram viewer gives higher [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=geologic+formation%2Cgeological+formation&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 results] for "geological formation" instead of "geologic formation". Volcanoguy 20:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The two terms may not be synonymous. Apparently the OED says is that "Geological" is the adjectival form of "geology", while "geologic" means something related to the earth (i.e., independent of the study of that object).{{cite encyclopedia|last=Sheriff|first=RE|year=2002|title=Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Geophysics|publisher=Society of Exploration Geophysicists|page=159|entry=geologic, geological|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedic_Dictionary_of_Applied_Geoph/pZONDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA159&printsec=frontcover}} This may be in British English, and the distinction does not appear to be universally used. If you follow that rule, it should be "Geologic formations". I'm unsure. — hike395 (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I guess the American English considers these synonyms:

::::* Merriam Webster says: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/geological geological] variants: or less commonly geologic.

::::In my opinion the ref cited by hike395 should be favored, as a broad source directly about the distinction and from a source in the field of study. Here is a quote of the full entry:

::::* {{tq|geologic, geological: The Oxford English Dictionary says, "There is now a slight distinction between the use of geologic and geological: the former tends to be used only as an epithet of things forming part of the subject matter of the science: we may say a geologic epoch, but hardly a geologic student, a geologic history." My personal preference is to use whichever word sounds best depending on what it's associated with; thus I would write "seismic and geologic data" and "geophysical or geological data."}}

::::Using OED's concept would be potentially confusing. The term "geologic epoch" would be correct if we discuss a bunch of epochs like "first there was an astronomical epoch, then a geologic epoch and finally a biological one." That seems very rare in Wikipedia. However we would say "The Holocene is the current geological epoch."

::::I know this may not help you decide, but on the other hand it clearly does not matter that much. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think the concept of consistency of spelling only applies within articles. I see no problem with an article "Geological formation" and "Category:Geologic formations". Both are valid spellings of the adjective but a rename to "Category:Geological formations" would be an improvement because it is the more commonly used term.

:::::I cannot think of any example of the word "geologic" being used instead of "geological" in British English. The choice of geologic/geological is not a problem in British English, where the situation is very simple - use geological not geologic. In American English, the adjectives "geologic" and "geological", however, seem somewhat interchangeable. Any nuances of meaning are much more likely to be an issue for American English because, unlike British English, it uses "geologic" very often and "geological" sometimes. The United States Geological Survey exists not the United States Geologic Survey, and the Geological Society of America exists not the Geologic Society of America, but these and every other American publisher of geological literature use "geologic" instead of "geological" in the text of hundreds of thousands of their articles and books.

:::::Quotation from the OED: "{{tq|we may say a geologic epoch, but hardly a geologic student, a geologic history.}}"

:::::I disagree with some of this. Google Scholar search results show "geologic history" accounted for 18% of all academic occurrences of "geologic history" or "geological history" in the past 25 years. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22geologic+history%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2000&as_yhi=] [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2000&q=%22geological+history%22&btnG=]. One in six authors is not using the wrong word, they are all using the correct word, which is either "geological" or "geologic", depending on personal preference. GeoWriter (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::In Google Scholar I got about 63,500 results for "geological formation" versus about 19,400 results for "geologic formation". Volcanoguy 19:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think the results in Google Scholar are compelling enough to change the category tree to "Geological formation", but it would be a big pain to change. We could also leave it inconsistent. — hike395 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{green|I think the concept of consistency of spelling only applies within articles.}} If that is the case then why are the article titles of other stratigraphic units like bed (geology) and group (stratigraphy) not consistent with geological formation? It appears geological formation was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geological_formation&diff=prev&oldid=223882679 moved] from formation (stratigraphy) in 2008 because it's a "better definition", but there doesn't seem to be an explanation for why "geological formation" is the better definition. I'm not opposed to moving the article back to formation (stratigraphy) if that's a better title. Perhaps it's more specific because there's probably not a universal definition for what a formation is in geology. Volcanoguy 22:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::"{{green|I think the concept of consistency of spelling only applies within articles.}}" Volcanoguy, I mean that Wikipedia style rules exist for the spelling of any given word in a particular article: MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:ARTCON. e.g. in the Pangaea article, Pangaea should be Pangaea not Pangea and not both, because of the non-American English taking precedence in that article because non-American English is the English variety used early in the article's history. In other articles, the supercontinent can be referred to as Pangaea or Pangea (but not both spellings in a single article). Your point is about spelling consistency across multiple articles. My comment was intended to make the point that I do not know of any Wikipedia style rule that requires consistency across multiple articles, which is why inconsistencies such as those you have listed do occur.

:::::::Perhaps we are drifting a bit too far from the original question of article/category title consistency but as you mentioned a possible move/rename of the article, I will mention here that I dislike the article title "Geological formation" (or "Geologic formation") and I would welcome a rename. This article's edit history shows that its title started as "Geologic formation" then became "Geological formation" then "Formation (stratigraphy)" then "Geological formation". In geology, the entity is a "formation" not "geological formation" nor "geologic formation". Geological or geologic are merely optional adjectives when describing rock formations. Google ngram viewer suggests that "rock formation" is used more nowadays than "geological formation" or "geologic formation". A possible solution to the geological/geologic/rock adjective problem that I very much prefer is to change the article title to Formation (geology) (which is currently a redirect to Geological formation). It could have redirects from "Geological formation", "Geologic formation" and "Formation (stratigraphy)". I prefer a rename to "Formation (geology)" not "Formation (stratigraphy)" because the formation article needs cover the stratigraphical concept of a formation and also the non-scientific popular usage of formation to mean a rocky landform, outcrop or exposure, such as a granitic tor or a hoodoo etc., as well as any other non-stratigraphical meanings that may emerge. This would make it similar to Rock (geology) where the entity is a "rock" not a "Geological rock" nor a "Geologic rock" and the article title is not Geological rock or Geologic rock. I can repeat/expand my reasoning elsewhere if a formal move/rename of the "Geological formation" article were to be requested in future. GeoWriter (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to include both stratigraphical and non-stratigraphical meanings in one article since they refer to two different things. Volcanoguy 20:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::For example, crater lake was split into volcanic crater lake and impact crater lake. Volcanoguy 00:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:A similar question is whether either "geologic map" or "geological map" the prefered usage? Paul H. (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::"Geological map" seems to be the preferred usage. Volcanoguy 19:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Late Devonian extinction#Requested move 5 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amazonian craton#Requested move 27 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The RM is to uppercase 'Formation', and editors of this WikiProject may have an interest in either reviewing the RM or participating in it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This article is at GAN if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Volcanoguy 15:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The Geography page has a section titled "related fields," which includes both Geology and Planetary science. We could use a bit of elaboration/citations on both, and citations for the planetary science page. If anyone wants to take a crack at them, it would be appreciated! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Variscan chain was recently translated from French. However, to me it seems to essentially be a duplicate of Variscan orogeny, and in my opinion the two article should probably be merged. I wanted to get an outside opinion before making a formal merge request though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:A merge seems the obvious solution. The new article even uses "Variscan orogeny" several times, rather than "Variscan chain". Mikenorton (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have now made a formal merge proposal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Variscan_orogeny#c-Hemiauchenia-20250423142200-Proposal_to_merge_Variscan_chain_into_this_article] Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of a flag to the rockunit infobox in the Rio Mayer Formation article, after checking with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. I then noticed that the same editor had added flags to formation/group infoboxes in many articles and began removing them. However, I noticed that some of the units edited had flags from their creation (the editor just tweaked the template). Does my reading of the "no flag" rule meet with general agreement with project members, as I'm not seeking to get into disputes over this? I'm holding off from any further deflagging for now. Mikenorton (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Over the last several months, I have also removed some flags from infoboxes, to comply with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. It seems to be a clear and simple style guideline. I agree with the "no flag" in infoboxes rule. I think the onus is on editors who have added flags to justify why they should not be removed. GeoWriter (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:The editor who was adding these also added blatant hoaxes to some articles, so they've been long-term blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I support removal of flags. The rock units came well before any country(s) they are in, so it is hardly relevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Definitively support removing the flags, per all the reasons above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I also support the removal of flags from info boxes as they are irrelevant and serve as distracting eye candy in addition to reasons mentioned above. Paul H. (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks everyone for the responses, it's pretty much what I was expecting and matches my understanding of the guideline, but you never know. I will continue to remove flags in infoboxes wherever I come across them, at least once I've finished tinkering with a bit of Welsh geology that I recently encountered on a trip to the Cader Idris area. Mikenorton (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's still a bunch of flags added by the IP that haven't been removed yet: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:10A6:C:75A5:E464:98BD:AB87:6EF3] Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The IP has added flags on a bunch of articles relating to geological formations, but they're not the only ones who have done so. I'm currently going through articles to remove the flag templates. Volcanoguy 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So far it seems there are hundreds if not thousands of rock unit articles using flag templates. Volcanoguy 17:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Despite being ranked as "high importance" to Wikiproject Geology, recently a user decided to remove all of the geology-related content from the Indian subcontinent article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&diff=1283263783&oldid=1283263642], calling it "garbage" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_subcontinent&diff=1283263642&oldid=1283263524]. If you have any comments on the issue, you may want to participate in the talkpage discussion: Talk:Indian_subcontinent#My_sad_duty. Many thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've replied on the article's talk pages, noting WP:Content forks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

: The Geology section has been restored, but F&F has insisted on adding "neutral point of view" and "factual accuracy disputed" tags, as well as having removed the images showing the geological drift of the subcontinent. Please see Talk:Indian_subcontinent#F&F's_changes_and_addition_of_"NPOV"_and_"factual_accuracy"_labels, for discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The Burma plate article uses the name for the region between the Andaman subduction zone and the back-arc spreading rift in the Andaman Sea. The name Burma Plate is also used for the West Burma Block (Burma west of the Sagaing Fault), including the Geology of Myanmar article here, as well as the geological literature. I don't find it particularly clear whether there are two separate units which happen to be given the same name, or whether they are considered a single plate. This was raised at Talk:Burma Plate last July.

(I stumbled over this while investigating the boundaries of the Indian subcontinent and how it differs from South Asia; and in particular how much of Assam and Burma lie within it.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:As the editor that raised it last year, I can add the following recent papers that use a definition of the Burma Plate that extends northwards to the end of the Sagaing Fault. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040195124002361 She et al. 2024], [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031920124000414 Kasaundhan et al. 2024] and [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002449372400224X Akhtar et al. 2024]. There are some disagreements about how far west to take it, however. Mikenorton (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

: Speaking of the WBB, there's a really cool CC-BY paper that came out within the last year that discusses its geologic history in case anyone wants to expand articles related to the topic [https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/SP549-2024-18]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:The region covered by the article is also known as the Andaman Sea plate, which is a less ambiguous name for the narrower conception, but Google Scholar tells me that it's a minority usage. Burma Terrane is another name for the West Burma Block. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I was wanting to fix some sections relating to the Tullock and Fort Union Formations to only realize there are some issues in the literature up to the modern day. In the literature, Fort Union is referenced as both a formation and a group whereas the Tullock Formation has been referenced as either a formation or member of the "Fort Union Formation". This potentially is based on geographical regions weirdly enough and the Tullock Formation was elevated to it's current status in the 1930's. I'm just mainly asking since what the answer to this question is determines how much work I have to do. Interested to read what you all think, thanks in advance. SeismicShrimp (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Relevant pages: Fort Union Formation, Tullock Formation. No opinion on the underlying issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Also Lebo Member since it would be needed to be elevated to a formation SeismicShrimp (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:As best as I can tell, most recent publications give the Fort Union unit "Formation" status (10:1). This is based on Google Scholar searches over the last five years and the relevant Geolex entries. The Tullock Member is preferred over the Tullock Formation (3:1). Mikenorton (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see sources for the units being elevated, are there any sources arguing against it. Based on all of this, it seems like things need to be ironed out. SeismicShrimp (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I broke down my scholar results into ten-year periods and noted that for the Fort Union unit the ratio of Formation to Group over the last twenty years was >13:1, so I don't think there's much room for doubt there. Slightly less clear cut for the Tullock unit but over the last fifty years Member has always been more common than Formation and particularly in the last five years. Most of the papers are by palaeontologists rather than stratigraphers, however, so it's been difficult to find much definitive rather than just the usage I've described. Usage is of course what we rely on. We need to mention the alternative stratigraphic set-up in the relevant articles, but I think that they should be the Tullock Member as part of the Fort Union Formation unless we have a definitive (and reasonably recent) publication that argues against that. Mikenorton (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::sounds good, thanks for putting in the work! SeismicShrimp (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving Sciences, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine and Business-related articles and we hope to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved in particular. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for geology, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Are River terraces (tectonic–climatic interaction) and Fluvial terrace duplicate articles? It seems like it to me, but I wanted to get a second opinion Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like it, I would merge. The parenthetical dab on River terraces (tectonic–climatic interaction) seems nuts. — hike395 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds fair to merge. "River terraces (tectonic–climatic interaction)" was created from a student user's sandbox by moving, rather than pasting into a broader topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that a merge of River terraces (tectonic–climatic interaction) with Fluvial terrace is in order. Paul H. (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The oxide minerals page has the following statement regarding its classification scheme:

: IMA-CNMNC proposes a new hierarchical scheme (Mills et al., 2009). This list uses it to modify the Nickel–Strunz classification (mindat.org, 10 ed, pending publication).

The arsenate mineral page also has this statement at the top of the classification.

In particular, my attention was caught by the moving of the {{chem2|V^{[5,6]}|}} vanadates, which are listed as "(moved to -08- Class: vanadates)". My understanding of Strunz's class 08 is that it is defined by tetrahedral trianions, not simply elemental composition, though I may be mistaken. However, the pages for phosphate mineral and arsenate mineral make no mention of the higher-coordinated vanadates, or at least my coal-mine canary of carnotite, a rather important pentacoordinated vanadate.

I am not aware of any source for this proposed modification of Strunz. The Mills et al. paper provides examples at the more specific level, chiefly groups, and does not have concrete definitions for the "class" portion of the hierarchy (which is what that page should be concerned with). Setting aside "pending publication", mindat does not have the changes in the article either.

If this is not WP:OR, can someone source this? If not, the page should probably use the published Strunz 9th ed. or the public mindat version, rather than a modified version of uncertain provenance. Fishsicles (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've restarted the discussion of using natural disambiguation for geological timespan articles (e.g., Pennsylvanian period instead of Pennsylvanian (geology)). Feel free to join in the discussion here. — hike395 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that it is no longer recognised by the ICS and hasn't been for decades, is it fair to describe the Tertiary period as "obsolete", or should another term be used? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's still used by some reliable sources, see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_ylo=2021&q=%22Tertiary+period%22 this Google Scholar search]. Perhaps "deprecated" is the correct term? — hike395 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I note that virtually all of the sources that turn up in that scholar search from 2021 to the present day are authored by non anglophone scientists, which is telling us something about usage. A similar search for [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=70&q=%22cenozoic+era%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2021"Cenozoic era"] over the same period has a significant number of anglophone authors (as far as I can tell), albeit still in a minority. Mikenorton (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:: I think Tertiary is obsolete as far as formal/official use in the ICS geological time scale is concerned. Has the use of Tertiary actually been deprecated in other contexts? I think "deprecated" is problematic because it can have two meanings, the most common is a more active and hostile meaning: "disapproved of, or discouraged"; the much more niche computing-related meaning is a more passive and benign meaning: "allowed but not recommended". I think this ambiguity does not help the reader. However, if any source reference citations can be found that clearly show that the term has indeed been deprecated and which of the two meanings of deprecated applies in this situation, then "deprecated" could be used.

::Perhaps various editors of the article have tried to describe the nuanced situation in too few words in the lead section i.e. "obsolete" or "largely obsolete". I suggest that a possible solution could be to use a longer, but more informative/accurate phrase, along the lines of "obsolete in the formal ICS timescale but still sometimes used in other contexts" GeoWriter (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I changed the lead because I found the original version {{tq|Tertiary is an obsolete term for the geologic period from 66 million to 2.6 million years ago.}} to be confusing (the Tertiary is a period, not just a term) and I didn't give much thought to adding "largely". I'll remove it if there's consensus to do so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As of 2012-3, the use of "Tertiary" appeared to be controversial, not obsolete.{{cite journal|first=R.W.O’B.|last=Knox|display-authors=et al|title=Examining the case for the use of the Tertiary as a formal period or informal unit|journal=Proceedings of the Geologists' Association|volume=123|issue=3|year=2012|pages=390-393|doi=10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.05.004}}{{cite conference|last=Edwards|first=LE|display-authors=et al|year=2013|title=It’s Time to Revitalize the Tertiary|conference=STRATI 2013: First International Congress on Stratigraphy At the Cutting Edge of Stratigraphy|pages=937-941|publisher=Springer International Publishing|url=https://www.academia.edu/download/37107798/Krobicki_et_al.__2014__STRATI_2013.pdf#page=867}} I haven't been able to find similar references after 2013. — hike395 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::2012 is 13 years ago now (time flies doesn't it) I concur with Mike Norton's comment that Tertiary is almost unused now among Anglophone researchers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::What do people think on "obsolete" versus "obsolescent"? Or "former geological period (replaced by Paleogene and Neogene)"? Lavateraguy (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::* The Tertiary (/ˈtɜːr.ʃə.ri, ˈtɜːr.ʃiˌɛr.i/ TUR-shə-ree, TUR-shee-err-ee) was the official designated name for the geologic period spanning 66 million to 2.6 or 1.8 million years ago. In 1989 it was split into the Paleogene and the more recent Neogene periods but the term Tertiary period continues to be used in geological literature.

::::Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::s/an/the/ Lavateraguy (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:An alternative is just to call it "informal" as opposed to the formal ICS designation - I found [https://ncs.naturalsciences.be/subcommissions/paleogene-neogene/ this report] from the Geological Survey of Belgium's Subcommission for Paleogene and Neogene Stratigraphy interesting. Mikenorton (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::One would want to continue to note the previous formal/official status, though not necessarily in the lede. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

There is currently a discussion at reliable sources noticeboard about the use of American Alpine Journal magazine for geology citations.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_publication_in_the_American_Alpine_Journal_sufficient_to_establish_the_elevation_of_a_mountain_peak? please consider participating. Graywalls (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Nimbahera stone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. No other language has an article from which to translate. No reliable sources exist on Google books or scholar. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:An alternative would be to redirect to Nimbahera#Economy. Lavateraguy (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::There is a nimbahera shale and a Nimbahera limestone, I am unsure which this refers to. 🤔 I'm guessing from the article the limestone. There seem to be articles about it but none that I can access easily --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Just created the above. This is really way outside of my wheelhouse, hopefully someone might want to take a look, fix if there are problems improve if possible. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seems like content from

:* Kuiper, Y. D. (2016). Development of the Norumbega fault system in mid-Paleozoic New England, USA: An integrated subducted oceanic ridge model. Geology, 44(6), 455-458.

:would be nice to add. It discusses evidence of similarity to the San Andreas fault. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Norumbega fault and Norumbega fault zone/system are different concepts, so I suggest that you change the title and lede.

:Skimming the literature this FZ seems to have formed the boundary between Ganderia and Avalonia. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)