Talk:Geomorphology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Geomorphology vs. Structural geology

Please clarify the difference between Geomorphology and Structural geology (in both articles). Respectively, make an order with category:Geomorphology vs. category:Structural geology: brief descriptions and membership. mikka (t) 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Not really sure what all you are asking. Geomorphology is the study of landforms. Structural geology is the study of structures (folds, faults, etc) within the rocks at scales varying from microscopic to continental. Now of course they are interrelated. Essentially, landforms are the product of erosive processes on the existing structure of the rocks involved and cannot be understood or explained without a good understanding of the geologic structure of the rocks. A geologist trying to decipher the structural geology of a region begins by studying the clues in the landforms. All is related. Now, there is a tendency of some geographers to think that geomorphology is a subdivision of geography and try to explain landforms without a thorough understanding of the structure, petrology, and stratigraphy on which the surface landforms develop. Landforms cannot be understood without knowledge of the geology on which they are formed.

Now, after all that, both articles are in need of improvement - as are most Wiki articles. So - someday someone will work 'em over (hopefully for improvement) and maybe I will (just don't hold your breath :-)

I don't really see the need for a category link from one category to the other as you have done - if we follow that to its logical end all categories would have to have links to all others as they are all inter-related. And that is an absurd proposition. Both are subcategories of Category:Geology aren't they?

Rambled enough for now. Vsmith 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to restore links between these two categories, since some things are obviously mixed across these two, until "someday someone..." . For example, I fail to see why Graben was in category:Structural geology but not in category:Landforms (only yesterday I created a new Category:Depressions and put Graben into it.). mikka (t) 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Let's see:

• "Geomorphology is the study of landforms, including their origin and evolution, and the processes that shape them"
• "Structural geology is the study of deformation of rock including breaking (fracturing and faulting) and bending or folding. More formally stated it is the branch of geology that deals with the geological processes through which the application of a force results in the transformation of a shape... etc."

I read that means that Str Geo is a subset of GeoMorf, a study of some particular ways of landforming. Or, quite probably, the definitions come from different schools of geology that don't quite match. This happens sometimes here in wikipedia.

So IMO the cross-links should sit here as a reminder that something is still out of nice order. mikka (t) 01:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Er... Did you read my post above? If the problem was with graben not showing up in Category:Geomorph, why not just put it there instead of all the non-standard contortions involving cross-linking categories? (I'l do that now) Seems much simpler, doesn't it? And - no, structural geology is not a subset of geomorph nor vice-versa. They are inter-related as are most all geologic topics, as I explained above, not subsets of each other. The two articles were written independently by different editors with differing perspectives - so, yes there will be conflicts and confusions (all part of the wonder of wiki.). Vsmith 02:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I provided a counter-agrument you apparently ignored. You are saying "not subset". I am saying "yes, subset". Read in my qoutations above: "...and the processes that shape them". Processes in rocks, isn't it the definition of StruGeo?

Until someone clearly defines the separation of the categories, people will assign articles to them quite randomly. Therefore a cross-link is useful.

Yes, everything is interrelated: wind and rock. But some things are not only interrelated, but also intermixed. A natural solution would be to put some articles inwo both cats. But until the "owners" of category:Geology will take the categorization under close scrutiny, people will throw articles into one cat or another pretty much at random.

I find this cross-link useful for laymen like me. Until a week ago I was not aware of Depression (geology). I noticed the whole category missing when I started systematically filling category:Mountain ranges of the Russian Federation and found that I have no place to put such things as Kuznetsk Depression. Until now no one bothered to figure out what to do with Geologic formation vs. Rock formation. Only an ignorant me drew the difference between Rock formation and Formation of rocks.

I am not bragging how smart I am. I am trying to say that geology is a rather neglected discipline here. (I suspect not only it; sexology, politics, videogames and vanity pages constitute, like, 70% of activity.) Therefore at this moment any additional "See also" is only helpful. mikka (t) 03:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If knowledgeable WP editors are unsure of the distinctions, think how confused the average reader will be! This is an especially good example of how cross-links, both in articles and categories, can clarify the situation for everybody all round. Stan 13:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structural geology != Geomorphology

OK. Structural geology deals with the imposed texture of a rock, like Vsmith said, at all scales. Including chunks of rocks euphemistically called 'hand specimens', and on the microscopic scale. Geomorphology is more closely aligned to geography than structural geology.
For instance, can the roundness of a mountain tell you whether it is a fold, on the side of a fault, or whether it was created during an orogeny some 1600 million years ago or by a different one 500 million years ago which affected the rocks which the first one formed? No. You need structural geology for that.
Can geomorphology tell you whether one block of rock moved up relative to another, whether the fault which separates them is a thrust or a normal fault, whether the mountain will collapse on your head from geotechnical instability? No.
Geomorphology describes landforms and erosion and shallow, surficial effects. It describes events which are active now and are passive geologically. It has virtually no predictive abilities I can think of except, perhaps, with shallow groundwater, soil types and the like, and it cannot be analyzed for anything excet to provide structural geological information, example, "there might be a fault there looking at the lineations on this photo" or similar. Structural geology, the article, has been excessively poorly written, (not my fault, ba-da-boom) and is fairly much incomprehensible even to me. And I know enough about structural geology to qualifty as 'semi-expert'. Or not a geomorphologist in the very least. So, hopefully, when I give it a douche of sensibility it will be fairly clear that, while related in the way chickens and eggs are, structural geology is much, much, much more than geomorphology. Rolinator 15:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur that geomorphology and structural geology are very different sub-disciplines of geology. I tend to think of geomorphology as being concerned with surface processes (erosion, sedimentation, soils, weathering, and the like), whereas structural geology is concerned with large-scale tectonic forces causing the internal deformation of solid earth materials whether by folding, faulting, or shearing. This generally excludes deformation caused by gravity (i.e. landslides), which here would be grouped in with the surface processes under geomorphology. When you start talking about "landforms" and "geologic formations", things get tricky in terms of classification due to the imprecise nature of those terms. What exactly do you mean by a landform? Is it the shape of the mountain? The material it is made of? The processes which formed that shape? While many landforms are going to draw from both structural and geomorphic disciplines for their explanation, I think of the geomorphic (surface) processes as being overlain on top of the structural (internal) processes. Not all structural grabens (i.e. two parallel inward-dipping normal faults allowing a central block to move downward relative to surrounding blocks) are expressed as a "landform" (i.e. a valley). And vice versa, not all valleys are structural grabens. In order to achieve the idealized "landform" shape associated with a structural graben, particular geomorphic conditions must occur (i.e. subsequent lack of erosion of graben edges, lack of significant sedimentation on top of down-dropped graben floor; essentially minimal surface modifications to structural result). I hope this is helpful. -- BlueCanoe 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Morris Davis

He actually was the one to RUIN geomorphology as we know it, so why does this article paint him so neutrally?