North Sea Geological History[edit]

New article on European geology. North Sea Geological History can it be added into the template? SriMesh | talk 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of national boundaries[edit]

I think that template's setup isn't so well chosen, please see my argument against dividing regional geology along national borders here. Woodwalker (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this whole template should be redone in terms of geologic features. The idea of using national borders as criterion for structuring information on regional geology tends to have poor results. Look at the problems with the Cordillera Oriental and Cordillera Occidental in South America when they started divying them up by country. Try discussing the Guiana Shield by country. This template should facilitate a comprehensive description of the geology of Europe. That is not done by having the Alps discussed in six or seven different articles by nation. The geology of Liechtenstein would not mean much without a lot of duplication from other "national" articles. We should brain-storm and draw up a list of major and significant geological features of Europe, examine the list for gaps, and then we could populate this template appropriately. --Bejnar (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of major features[edit]

A list of major and significant geological features of Europe:

Maybe after we get a fair list we can organize them by category. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you asked for help: I tried to put some structure in your list above and added more features. There are a few places where we can choose between large-scale or more detailed (geology of the Iberian Peninsula vs. every part of it seperately, same for Scandinavia). The faults can perhaps better not be included, there are so many. Of course we can include many more features, but I think these are at least the most important ones. Can be I forgot something of course. Woodwalker (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm joining the discussion a little late :). I think the consensus now is that geographic regions get short overview articles that link to the more in depth geologic articles (e.g. Geology of Russia). I already tried to implement a couple of things from the list, but it will take a while to work myself through all the existing articles and categories. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of GB inc N Ireland?[edit]

Great Britain includes only Scotland, England and Wales. Northern Ireland is out on its own so oughtn't really to be included within a GB umbrella - list it as one of four within the UK and you're fine - but then we don't have a 'geology of the UK' in the list. The search term 'Geology of Northern Ireland' currently redirects (as does 'Geology of Ireland') to an article Geography of Ireland where the entire island is treated as a single entity. Logic suggests then that perhaps we list Northern Ireland after 'Ireland' ie Ireland including Northern Ireland. Both approaches have their pros and their cons of course. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geowriter's solution seems a sensible one. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many red links in the list. Can't see why UK being red is so sensitive. Certainly with the huge amounts of UK editors here I wont last long until that article is created. Lappspira (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lappspira's change to this template to have one entry for the United Kingdom in the list of countries is a fair change and I accept it. It's unfortunate that the geology of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is actually exceptionally rich both scientifically and historically, then receives equal status in the template with e.g. San Marino and Liechtenstein, which have tiny amounts of rock and which have received only extremely small amounts of attention from geologists, but I suppose that's the outcome when an area is a country as in sovereign state rather than a regional identity. If that is to change then it's a political decision for the future, which is outside the scope of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that reports the world as it is, not how it should or could be.

I think the problem that needs to be solved regarding the UK and it's component counties is:

There is an existing article for the Geology of Great Britain. There are existing articles for 3 of the 4 component parts of the UK: Geology of England, Geology of Scotland and Geology of Wales. It's unfortunate that it was the Geology of Great Britain article that was created several years ago instead of a Geology of the United Kingdom article. Articles for Geology of Northern Ireland and Geology of the United Kingdom do not exist yet.

I suggest: (1) the Geology of Great Britain article should be renamed to Geology of the United Kingdom and that a section should then be included in this renamed article for the Geology of Northern Ireland. I intend to add a rename request to the Talk page of Geology of Great Britain, for discussion. and (2) a Geology of Northern Ireland article should be created.

GeoWriter (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geology of Great Britain was probably created to follow a more naturalistic approach than using country boundaries. I tend to agree with GeoWriter, but I argue for some caution since this reform could have implications for Ireland and Northern Ireland. I guess it all came from there, that the island of Ireland got one geography/geology article and then to avoid duplication (of Northern Ireland info) and to follow a naturalistic approach the Geology of Great Britain was created. I looked like a nice solution but essentially it is out of phase with the organization along country lines for the regional geology elsewhere in Wikipedia. Lappspira (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest we delete the section on terranes in the template since they way to many (see Sveconorwegian orogeny and Svecofennian orogeny for example) and most of them will not have an article in the future. Further some terranes have their status as terranes disputed with further complicates the issue. Removing the terranes will make the template more homogeneous in cover and more streamlined. Lappspira (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]