Talk:Petrology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Petrology is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. |
It is completely useless to link the word lithology to this article without any explanation. As someone who came without any idea what the word means trying to find out, this article does nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.125.251 (talk • contribs) 17:21, November 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, some reference to lithology should be made. Tnek46 01:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
well i don't think it is right--168.216.125.251
This page has like no info!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.170.22 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Massive stub
Well, now it's a stub with really deep roots. I'll add the images when I finish chopping them up. I made only minor changes to the text from 1911 although I saw quite a few things that need updating, so it's easy to find something to improve. (SEWilco 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
- I cut the massive 1911 text dump and created User:Vsmith/1911 Petrology as a working copy. Most of this would go in various petrologic subtopics rather than the general article. Please don't just dump stuff into the article for something to improve - rather add copy as it is improved/updated. Vsmith 16:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- The 1911 text seems to have a lot of info not here now, and there are a number of articles with text from the same source. Should the 1911 notice be at the top of the page to better advise readers? User:Vsmith page reinserted in article. (SEWilco 17:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
- I have removed the 1911 stuff again. Much of it was duplicated (or more?) by recent edits. The information is available (see above) - please add only relevant and non-obsolete material to the article. Much has transpired in the field of petrology in the past 90+ years and the 1911 bit is more than a little dated. The added material made the page excessively looong (see WP:SIZE) especially when duplicated as it was. Again the article is for reading - information for editors should not be included on the page itself - and the 1911 stuff was presented for editorial use (as such it is still available). Please keep the article concise, readable and up to date. Much better sources exist in the form of modern petrology texts - of course that means real writing, summarizing and editing - much easier to just copy/paste some antiquated out of copyright text. Vsmith 02:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, boys and girls, Vsmith has decreed you can't use all sources. You'll have to craft your own cathedrals instead of sharing all that is available. (SEWilco 03:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC))
- I have removed the 1911 stuff again. Much of it was duplicated (or more?) by recent edits. The information is available (see above) - please add only relevant and non-obsolete material to the article. Much has transpired in the field of petrology in the past 90+ years and the 1911 bit is more than a little dated. The added material made the page excessively looong (see WP:SIZE) especially when duplicated as it was. Again the article is for reading - information for editors should not be included on the page itself - and the 1911 stuff was presented for editorial use (as such it is still available). Please keep the article concise, readable and up to date. Much better sources exist in the form of modern petrology texts - of course that means real writing, summarizing and editing - much easier to just copy/paste some antiquated out of copyright text. Vsmith 02:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- The 1911 text seems to have a lot of info not here now, and there are a number of articles with text from the same source. Should the 1911 notice be at the top of the page to better advise readers? User:Vsmith page reinserted in article. (SEWilco 17:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
Editors: note that some of the outdated material may have information which would be useful for a "History of the field" section. I have a 1771 source which seems to not mention petrology but does have a lot of mineral study classified as part of "Chemistry". (SEWilco 17:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
- The 1911 material does include historical information for a History of petrology section. Other sources exist - for example the book Mind Over Magma by Davis Young (2003) is an excellent reference for igneous petrology history. A history section is a great idea, but please, not just a copy/paste addition of 1911 text or other older sources. Vsmith 02:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Geology Project. Please Help
If you are interested, please sign up to help establish the Geology Project. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Geology. Solarapex 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
