Talk:Geology of the Falkland Islands

British vs American Spellings

should we use brit or american spellings in this article?

arguments in favor of british spellings: the wiki manual of style (default to dialect of the place of the subject), cultural sensitivity over an area claimed by argentina and held by the U.K.(people killed each other over it), balance or 'equal time' for brits in an area that has many place-names in spanish used by english speakers (like the U.S. southwest), the brits may already be rubbed raw by this. or maybe they could care less.

arguments in favor of american spellings: maybe they are more globally understood, used and accepted than the british. maybe editors will constantly try to change the 'incorrect' brit. to the 'correct' amer. spelling. maybe editorial inertia will decide for us.

personally i think amer. is clearer. (but my inner child feels brit. is fun for a change although my outer adult thinks this is a violation of NPOV).

this issue will continue throughout the life of this article so reaching a consensus might be helpful.

please give your input and also vote one way or the other. thanks AnFu 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

British vs American Spellings Relevant to Article

metre, meter; kilometre, kilometer; colour, color; licence, license; dyke, dike; organisation, organization.

I don't much care about metre/meter--I was just reacting to an unexplained change of spelling. My major concern was "seizmic" to "seismic", which I'm fairly sure is the only English spelling. In British English, dyke may be more common than dike as used here, but in American English the dike spelling is more common. It does, however use British licence and colour, and in an area held by the U.K. changing to metres would be okay with me.

What about "end of the inferior or cenomaniano albiano to the beginning of the superior paleógeno"? What's the English terminology there? Are these particular formations (strata)? Are there English versions--and what about capitalization in English? Gene Nygaard 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • "...from the end of the inferior or cenomaniano albiano to the beginning of the superior paleogeno" puzzles me also. your questions are exactly the kinds of questions i've been having running around in my mind. i will change that phrase to a closer translation of the spanish: "Towards the end of the post-crest phase, from the end of the inferior Albian or Cenomanian to the beginning of the superior paleocene,..." found in Structure of the North Falkland River Basin: 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. (but there's some spanish text missing there so that location may end up further down.) btw, i'v now tydied that paragraph.

see Terms Relevant to this Article. AnFu 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

inferior is lower and superior is upper and early (lower?) and late (upper?) are used but i can't remember which are used in what way.

So we'll let the geologists at it.

AnFu 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Terms Relevant to this Article

Capitalized: Albian, Aptian, Berriasian, Cambrian, Cenomanian(?), Cenozoic, Cretaceous, Devonian, Jurasic, Paleocene, Paleozoic, Pre-Cambrian, Permian, Silurian, Siluro-Devonian, Tithonian, Triassic, West Falklands Group, Valanginian, Carboniferous glaciation,

Capitalized: Cape Meredith Complex, Lafonia, Lafonia Group,

group:

formation:

AnFu 08:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish & English Geological Terms

Barlovente = windward / upwind (side of something). Bioestratigráfica = biostratigraphic Cuenca = basin, also river basin or lake basin. Fluvio = fluvial or riverine or river (adjective). Hundimiento = sinking, subsidence (geological). Lacustre = lacustrine or lake (adjective). Laminas = sheets?, layers?, (planchas). Levantamiento = uplift, tectonic uplift. Litoestratigráfica = lithostratigraphy Palinológico = palynological. Paleontológico = paleontological. Peñascos = boulders, large rocks? Sotavento = leeward or downwind (side of something). Tectono = tectonic Unidad = unit or geologic unit (a specialised term).

AnFu 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Translators' Notes

A Spot For Future Notes By The Translators.

A 'basin' ('cuenca' in Spanish) can be a river basin or a lake basin. Also it can be both a river basin and a lake basin at different time periods in geological history. That is the case with the basins in this article about the Falklands. Therefore maybe it's better to call them just 'basins'. Also that may reduce the reader's confusion when looking for, or thinking about, a 'river basin' that presently is under the sea. For more information please see: Drainage basin (watershed), Sedimentary basin, Structural basin, and Depression (geology) (AnFu) AnFu 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

In the statement "When the Falkland Islands government granted licences licenses in 1996, seven companies agreed upon a drilling campaign" the Spanish article implied* ( *"Durante la oferta de licencias en 1996" = "During the 'offer/offering' of licences in 1996") there was a limited time period during which drilling or exploratory licences were granted, but didn't clearly state that. Maybe in the future some editor can research, elaborate & clarify about that licence-granting offer time period and any conditions or restrictions it might have had. [maybe later move this to its own section] (AnFu) AnFu 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

After the initial survey that indicated there might be oil deposits, the Falklands government wasn't willing to grant drilling and exploration licences. That's always piqued my curiosity. Maybe in the future some editor can research and add an explaination as to why the Falklands' government didnt want to go ahead with drilling and exploration. [maybe later move this to its own section] (AnFu) AnFu 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These are potential 'categories' or related topics to add to bottom of the article. I'm going to dump them here for now and sort/evaluate them later. AnFu 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Geology of the Falkland Islands

Category:Economic geology Category:Petroleum Category:Depressions Category:Soil mechanics Category:Geology Category:Stratigraphy Category:Geomorphology Category:Hydrology Category:Earth sciences Category:Geology Paleontology Category:Biology Category:Fossils Category:Historical geology Category:Geological processes Category:Fossil fuels Category:Sedimentology Category:Seismology Category:Petroleum Category:Sedimentary rocks Marine geology

see also: British Geological Survey

Regional geology Geology of the United Kingdom

Paleozoic Mesozoic

Geological Questions

im looking for advice, authoritative input, and consensus on geological terminology. im just going to spill this out quickly w/the intention of tyding later.

i'll assume British Geological Survey is acceptably abbreviated as BGS.

should we use source rock or host rock for "roca fuente"? the bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshore_intro.htm site uses source rock.

Source rock is the petroleum geology term.

is 'mature rock' (per BGS) translated from 'roca madura' a geol. accepted term?

another specialized petroleum geology term means a well developed petroleum containing formation - I'm no petroleum geology expert though.

is there a geological abbreviation for 'below sea level'? bsl? b.s.l.?

Hmm ... not sure about that one.

thank you for your endevours to make this a better entry. AnFu 03:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

in running text it is best to use 'below sea level', without any abbreviationRockhead9 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vsmith has geology background. My geology background is from the Discovery Channel. AnFu 15:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do have a degree in economic geology, but haven't been active with it for a while. I have been trying to make this article readable over the past month or so - little at a time. I know little about the geology of the Falklands, I'm learning here - most interesting geologic history. Seems it would have been easier to write from scratch using the BGS site and other info than the translation bit, but wasn't aware of the BGS site when I started on it (yeah, should've researched a bit). As to British vs American English - I'm in the US so naturally write with that style, but have no real preference so if you want to change terms I use - feel free. Vsmith 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed; it does have an interesting geological history; all the more reason to do some research!Rockhead9 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Placenames

I propose to change occurances of "Great Falkland" to "West Falkland" and "Soledad Island" to "East Falkland", as I believe these are the names English language speakers will recognise. In general our coverage of the Islands' geography is rather poor, and I don't beleive we have a page that names the geographic features of the islands in English and Spanish. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dock?

The word "dock" isn't used in English by geologists (I think). If this means "a big crack in the ground that is filled up with magma, leaving a hard granite wall" then the English word is dyke. Is this what you mean here? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Original source

My guess is that much of this article started off in English from a British Geological Survey publication as stated at the end. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshoredef.htm seems to have some of the phrases and some of the rest may be linked from it. But then there is the danger of copyvios. --Henrygb 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

i have two questions which are not rhetorical. is it worth it to translate into english a spanish article whose source documents are in english? is there the danger of the game of "telephone"?

in spanish (from the spanish wiki) the article seems too vague, ambiguous, and general for an article on a scientific topic, which made me wonder how much it's been edited, translated or simplified. perhaps it's been strained thru too many brains such that the substance has been tossed in the bin.

the spanish article has elements and wording that are very, very similar to the english language falklands site noted in the first entry in this discussion. however, the spanish article also contains much more info than that site.

so is translation worth it or should people just build the entry from scratch (using source documents already in english)? Anfu AnFu 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing Translation

I just want to inform other contributors that I'm contining to translate parts of this article. Mainly this means I'm trying to modify the English translation to more accurately reflect what the Spanish version (as of 3 March 2006) states (I'm calling this process 'matching'). I have also found phrases and even long sections from the Spanish that are missing in the English. I think, since it is being translated as a source for the English Wiki, it is important that the Spanish information is accurately represented. My concern is that 1) inadequate translations still are present, 2) editors, working with an inadequate translation, edited words and passages into something other than their original meaning or feeling, and 3) that, presented with passages of nonsense, editors decided to delete them. If, however, editors have made changes based on additional information not in the Spanish version, then I apologize and encourage them to reinstate their modifications. I will try to indicate changes so that others may find, review, and modify them if justified. I will again apoligize ahead of time for any toes I may inadvertantly step on. 3 march 2006 (forgot to sign) AnFu 18:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Misc. Notes

I think the first mention of geographical names should have the Spanish name also. Thereafter maybe only the english name should be used. The rational for including the spanish names is basically because of a shared english-spanish heritage as noted above.AnFu 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Presently, in Wikipedia there's no article for 'source rock' there's only an article about Maturity (geology) which is actually 'mature source rock', that is, it's a type of source rock. There's also Petroleum geology but it's 'source rock' section needs to be improved. It doesn't address the levels of maturity. Maybe someone (with a greater interest in geology than me) who reads this can create a 'source rock' article, or modify the 'mature rock' article, or improve the 'source' (source rock) section of Petroleum geology. (AnFu) AnFu 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

a proper summarising introduction might be a future project. the way it begins now seems a bit abrupt and not introductory at all.AnFu 21:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A Question About A Detail

There is a vague spot in the text in the section "Tectonic-Stratigraphic Structure of the North Falkland River Basin: Post-Exploratory-Well Analysis:"

"Also, the lithostratigraphical units are useful to describe the stratigraphy only of individual wells, but are not useful to make comparisons, since there are lateral lithological variations between the units."

With regard to the word 'comparisons', comparisons of what or between what? The wells? Or the geological units? The Spanish article did not specify. However, as it is now it is vague and therefore confusing. To answer this question it may be necessary to do more research, or it may require an editor with some background in geology, or both. Any responses can be posted below. Thank you. (AnFu) AnFu 05:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Protest at the switching of units.

I believe that the switching of the units from metric first to Imperial first was ill-advised.

• This is a technical article, and the research on which it is based was done in metric units.
• Imperial units were supplied for those readers who needed them.
• The usage was in line with modern British practice.
• The notion that there was a consensus for changed is itself contentious.

Michael Glass (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I ageree with Michael. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! If one reads this talk page, one will see that there have been numerous comments about the translation from Spanish into English. There might still be a number of mistranslations which can lead to the article looking amateurish to a geologist. Why make it look even more amateurish? Martinvl (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you have decided you want to start this argument up again. Fact is, this was totally predictable. We all knew this was coming up again. I even said it at the time - even my prediction of three-to-four weeks seems to have been pretty good. There is absolutely no need to kick the sleeping dog but no, you just had to, didn't you?

The substance of the issue hasn't changed in the last three weeks. Because you won't accept anything less than 100% metrication of all Falklands articles, we don't have consensus to change units. Unless we can get consensus to change, the old consensus remains. That is all just as it was at the beginning of the month. Unless you've now decided to accept a reasonable compromise, in line with the MOS, there's not really much to discuss. Pfainuk talk 07:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My reason for starting this thread was to state my objection to your change of the units in this article. My reasons for this protest are stated above. Changing articles against the sources and against British usage is a provocative act, and you can expect a protest every time you do it. I do concede that you made this change before I had proposed that we have a moratorium on further changes, and if you have decided to cease doing this it would be a great help. Then both of us could concentrate on more productive endeavours. Michael Glass (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You were the one who randomly converted an article here, out of the blue. Not me. You. What's the point in your calling for a moratorium if your track record suggests that you will promptly break it three weeks later, for no apparent reason? Do you really want us all to piss into the wind for another three months? Because it really does look like it.

Unless you have an inside track that I don't know about, that those who previously opposed the notion of our more closely adopting the MOS are now willing to accept it. If so, I'd like to hear it. Then we can put this entire affair away for good. Pfainuk talk 12:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reproducing the appropriate paragraph of the WP:MOS to remind editors of what is expected of them:

• In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always; for example, natural units are often used in relativistic and quantum physics, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹.

All the geological articles published by Falklands Islands sources that I have seen use metric units. Martinvl (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason that we don't follow the MOS particularly closely is because you won't let us. With this newfound respect for the MOS, will you now support the proposal to follow it more closely, and let us finish this dispute once and for all? Pfainuk talk 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost all modern geology maping and reseach is carried out in meters, this is true also for thr Falklands. To further show Pfainuk's un-bearable position I wan't to point out the article does not only has "allegiance" to the Falklands islands but also to to other articles about geology so to claim to use oldfashoned and dying units to give internal consistence in to Falklands topics has to be put in the light of that we also desire consistency between geology articles. Apart from this it's totally ridicule to speak about things like crustal thicknesses in feet, I bet even an experienced geologist from Oxford will find it strange and unnatural to think about things like that in imperial units. Chiton magnificus (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If and when we get a proper consensus on units on Falklands articles we can switch units in accordance with that consensus - a consensus that would almost certainly include a switch on this article. But as things stand, we do not have such a consensus. We don't have a consensus because some users preach the MOS but are apparently unwilling to follow it. In the absence of a new consensus the old consensus - for imperial units first - stands. Pfainuk talk 16:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What if we all are in consensus except you, will you insist on using primarily imperial untis? How far are you willing to go? Chiton magnificus (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pfainuk wrote "... the old consensus - for imperial units first - stands". May I point out that as this so-called consensus is obviously contrary to WP:MOS, so something needs to be done. One of the rules of the Arbitration Committee Policy is that "Sensible 'real world' laws" apply. In the real world a legal document that obviously violates the law of the land would either be declared null and void by the courts, or the courts would sever those parts that violate the law from the rest of the document. The courts would not attempt to rewrite the document. The same applies to a consensus in Wikipedia. In the case of the "old consensus" (as you call it), there is no possibility of severing the section that is contrary to WP:MOS because the "consensus" is so short. Please acknowledge therefore that the "old consensus" is null and void and act accordingly. Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your hypocrisy is astounding. I would like to invite everyone to enjoy the irony here, because the reason why we don't follow the MOS closely on Falklands articles is because Martin won't accept it. Martin, who insists that anything that doesn't follow a strict interpretation of the MOS on some matters is somehow "null and void" (which is Wikilawyering, incidentally), is the same person who insists that we can't possibly accept the MOS when it says that we should use imperial units in some circumstances. His own edit is not even MOS-compliant, in that it doesn't include conversions. You can't have it both ways. Either we follow the MOS, and we follow all of it, or we don't. You can't just pick and choose those parts of the MOS that suit your agenda, and treat those parts of the MOS as gospel while ignoring the rest.

Until a new consensus is found, the old consensus remains. You have a choice: either help us find a new consensus, or live with the fact that the old consensus remains. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk, Please refrain from offensive expressions and personal attacks. Three people have raised their voices in protest at your action in changing the units in this article. Each one has raised different and separate issues. When you argue consensus as a response to dissent it begins to sound like nonsense. Please take note of the concerns that have been expressed. Michael Glass (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To User:Pfainuk:

You have accused me of hypocrisy - I regard this as a personal and unfounded insult - I demand an apology.

When you wrote "Unless you've now decided to accept a reasonable compromise, in line with the MOS, there's not really much to discuss", you have made what in English law would be called Demands with menaces. Would you please apologise to everybody concerned with this article for making such demands.

I have revoked your last revocation on grounds that it violates WP:MOS as applied to scientific articles.

Martinvl (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I said you were being hypocritical because you are. If we could have got an agreement to follow the MOS closely, then this whole thing would have been resolved months ago. The only reason why we don't have such agreement because you won't accept it. You demand that the MOS be treated as law when it suits you and yet outright refuse to allow us to use it elsewhere. When you add units or change units on articles - this one included - they aren't even MOS-compliant.

Trying to insist that we must use the MOS, simply because it's the MOS, but then rejecting its use when it doesn't suit your position, is plainly hypocritical. If you don't like this fact, I suggest you try taking a position that isn't hypocritical. Pfainuk talk 07:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So to sum up, a while ago Pfain changes this, Michael notices and breaches moratorium to change it, and now a revert war has risen up? Huh. How lame. Now, just for the record: 3RR is breached on the forth revert in a 24h period, so Chiton? Don't leave provocative warnings when you don't understand the policy, heck provocative warnings are a bad idea in general. And the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. That said, pick a side guys. Either you want it, in which case I believe the MOS comes out in favour of using local units.

As predicted this dispute is now being hijacked by those with an agenda, so I can't say I have any real desire to participate that much, but can we at least have this debate in a central location? Unlike you guys, I don't have every falkland article everywhere watchlisted. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Narson~, don't try to infect this discussion more than it is already. You are not asuming good faith. What we need here is not more accusations and counter accusations we need a true consensus. Diverting the attention to personal attacks will lead nowhere.Chiton magnificus (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks in my comment, so please stop slapping red herrings around to cover your bully boy tactics with the warnings. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a few points:

• Moratorium Pfainuk never agreed to a moratorium, and when I saw that this article had been changed earlier this year I changed it back. What is the point of a one-sided moratorium? However, in fairness I must concede that Pfainuk made this change before I had suggested a moratorium. Nevertheless, it was still a very provocative thing to do when he knew full well that it would be controversial. Hence my protest.
• Edit war Not nice at all, but it takes two sides to war over edits. It also demonstrates a lack of consensus.
• Those with an agenda Applies to both sides. They just have different agendas.
• MOS Policy One clause reads: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always..." As Geology is a science and the article is about geology, it's a scientific article, so usage should be determined by the scientific literature on the topic - mostly SI.
• Debate this elsewhere There is also a discussion at [1]

Hope this helps. Michael Glass (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Geological history of the Falkland Islands

In second paragraph, line 3, you mention "...dikes... that lie principally in the southern part of East Falkland". This unfortunately is in contradiction with the following Geological Map, which clearly pinpoints these dikes in the Western Falkland.

Geological history of the Falkland Islands

In second paragraph, line you mention "...dikes... that lie principally in the southern part of East Falkland". This unfortunately is in contradiction with the following Geological Map, which cle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.249.62 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geology of the Falkland Islands. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720195504/http://www.epd.gov.fk/wp-content/uploads/Falkland%20Islands%20State%20of%20the%20Environment%20Report%202008_final_sm.pdf to http://www.epd.gov.fk/wp-content/uploads/Falkland%20Islands%20State%20of%20the%20Environment%20Report%202008_final_sm.pdf

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) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)