Talk:Ironstone

Comments[edit]

Shouldn't it be <50%. >50% doesnm't make sense in the context.

Ironstone is used in china: 148.13 million tons of ironstone and refined iron ore in 2003 (http://www.stats.gov.cn/English/newrelease/statisticalreports/t20040303_402133921.htm). Kdammers 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Corrected the typo. You're welcome to check and add the reference about China (my statement about scarce usage outside UK was based on some google source, but it is by no mean well-referenced). --Cyclopia 11:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Google source is incorrect. The term "ironstone" is used all over the world within the scientific literature concerning sedimentology, pedology, and other aspects of Earth sciences.Paul H. (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Merge with Banded Iron Formation? 67.201.137.169 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Merging an article about a pre-cambrian process with a particular mineral seems a bad idea. For example nodules of ironstone occur in the coal measures. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- two quite different things- though obviously have iron in common! Cross-referencing between the two articles would be appropriate though. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Ironstones include a very wide range of rocks of very different origins and ages that are totally unrelated to banded iron formations. For example, they include Quaternary and Late Neogene ironstones of pedogenic origin (plinthite and ferricrete) and digenetic origin (bog iron). In fact ironstone is a part of the profiles of numerous modern soils. The term ironstone also includes Paleozoic and Mesozoic oolitic ironstones, which are of a different origin and nature from banded iron formations. Finally, if a person looks at the geologic literature, i.e. the American Geological Institute's Glossary of Geology, a person will find that Earth scientists typically restrict the use of the term "ironstone" to hard coarsely banded, nonbanded, and noncherty sedimentary rocks of post-Precambrian age, which excludes banded iron formations. Having a link to banded iron formations, of which there is already one in this article, is the best way to handle this.Paul H. (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012

Merge Ironstone Article with Iron-rich sedimentary rocks Article ?[edit]

Comparing the Ironstone article with Iron-rich sedimentary rocks article, it seems that 1. the Ironstone article unnecessarily duplicates part of the content of the Iron-rich sedimentary rocks article, 2. there is significant overlap with the content of these pages, and 3. the Ironstone article has minimal content that is covered in more detail within the Iron-rich sedimentary rocks article. Paul H. (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ironstone is not congruent with either iron-rich, or even iron ore. Ironstone is a broad term, admittedly, but it has a key distinction from rocks that are merely iron-rich, in that it's commercially (or has been, or is marginally so) exploitable as an ore for the production of iron. Nor is it the same thing as iron ore. At least in the UK, the ironstones of the Midlands would be seen as a very different proposition from the haematite ores of Cumberland. Then there are the banded irons, which for reasons of their great age and their oscillatory chemical behaviour, are quite another thing again.

Also the Ironstone article has minimal content WP:SOFIXIT. Why is it (still, after twenty years) that the first response to articles is to how to make things worse, not better? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]