Talk:Geology of British Columbia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrane Theory?[edit]

This article is in need of revision, as summarized below. I restrict my comments here to the part that discusses "terrane theory". To begin with, the concept of tectonostratigraphic terranes is not a theory but rather one approach in trying to sort out the complex assemblage of geologic units in the western cordillera of North America. Jim Monger has made many important contributions, but he did not initiate this idea. In fact, the first mention I find of the term "tectonic terrane" appears in the 1970 paper by Bill Dickinson (J Sedimentary Petrology, v. 4, No. 2, P. 695-707) "Interpreting detrital modes of graywacke and arkose". Dickinson and others were using the term "tectonostratigraphic unit" in the 1970's and perhaps earlier. The term terrane, the sense of tectonostratigraphic unit, was in wide use in the early 1970's as well. My take is that the term "terrane" was in play in the late 1960's, as the concept of tectonostratigraphic terranes was initiated simultaneously in the western Cordillera of the US (Dickinson) and Canada (Monger) and New Zealand (Landis and Coombs). By the way, the wiki site on Terrane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrane provides an excellent discussion of the term. --MuTau (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs work[edit]

This article really needs work, even to a complete restructuring. This is a BIG topic, with a LOT of material, and could be (should be?) a big article. But a dash-in, dash-out "fix" is not going to help. It really needs some one to adopt it, spend some time on digging through the materials and getting to know the topic. Even if such a person does not write the entire article just having a proposed structure would others to bite off portions to work on. I am going to add some links that might be of assistance to that end. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles on BC geology need work. I have been recreating and expanding Canadian volcanological articles (largely BC) for a long time to help this problem, but it seems almost like no one is interested, does not have the opportunity to expand them or just being lam. Geology articles are just as major as geography ones if not more. Geology is what creates the landscape, not geography. Landforms such as plateaus, mountains, plains, volcanoes, valleys are all geologic formations. Yet, very few BC articles do not contain the geology they should have. They usually only contain history and other humanity stuff. Like I mean landforms are more than history of humanity. It is also surprising that some articles about communities do not contain stuff like geological hazards that could or do have effects on the associated community or area. This also goes for the Lower Mainland. Any large floods, lahars, landslides, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions (e.g. from Mount Baker, Mount Garibaldi, Mount Cayley, Mount Meager) in southern British Columbia are likely to have large effects. BT (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note a similar problem exists for BC geography articles..... BT (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the U.S. geology articles are, in the main, in much better shape. Well, I threw in a bunch of cross-links; maybe that will attract some editors. I see a lot of stub articles on minor features, where I think what is needed some overall organization, like a few major articles to provide some structure. The geology wikiprojects don't seem to be doing that. Is that a general problem with Wikipedia? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I just remade and expanded the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article today from collecting information over time. That is what a proper geology article should look like. BT (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressive! Though I think you should switch over to Harvard (parenthetical) referencing. With that many references, and that much cross-referencing, I think the references have to be pulled out of the text to properly manage them. Also, if someone wants to check who you have referenced for a section it's a simple matter to peruse the footnotes. (Check how I did it for Chuckanut Formation.) Also, I am coming around to specifying every citation ("ref") to the page (so I don't have to reread an entire article to check a fact), which pretty much requires parenthetical references. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the references you cited have authors though. The GVB article contains both authorized and website resources. My referencing is based on articles that have FA status. BT (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it looked rather odd – all those references without authors. Well, that can be finessed using CITEREF. I was wondering if you might be using dubious web sites, but no, these are the official GSC pages, which are all done anonymously. And thus a bit of a challenge. I'll have to consult my referencing guides on this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got something to show you regarding citations. Check my sandbox: I took the first two paragraphs of your GVB article and converted it to parenthetical (Harvard) referencing, using the 'Harv' template. The result is pretty much the same, except that I put multiple citations in a reference, rather than giving each citation an individual reference. (I also diddled with Harv and citation to test some possibilities; see also my citations.) The big difference is: the text mark-up isn't cluttered with all the bibliographic details, and vice-versa. Which I think is a strong argument in favor. I also determined that 'no-author' entries can be handled in several ways. Are you convinced? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geology of British Columbia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geology_of_British_Columbia&oldid=1199545732"