Volcanoes Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

How is someone supposed to add other igneous rocks in this template that have different percentages of silica content? For example, the trachyte article says this volcanic rock has 60 to 65% silica. This would overlap with the intermediate (52–63% SiO₂) and intermediate-felsic (63–69% SiO₂) parameters. The template should be more organized to include all igneous rock types, not just a few of them. Volcanoguy 10:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to see some controversial changes being discussed before being arbitrarily imposed. Igneous rocks are complex. The template is simple and any specialist know that igneous rocks are much more complex and diverse than shown there. But the template brings in clarity for non-specialist. It is impossible to include all ingeous rocks in a simple template. To the point: adding trachyte as the sole representant of the alkaline rocks makes little sense since trachyte differentiates from basaltic trachyandesite and not from basaltic andesite. Further it would prompt its plutonic equivalent syenite to be included… The template as of now (before the Volcanoguy edits) covers the most common and voluminous igneous rocks on Earth which are the subalcaline ones. Mamayuco (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The title text of this template as it appears in each Wikipedia article is currently "Common igneous rocks classified by silicon dioxide content". I suggest this could be changed to ""Common subalkaline igneous rocks classified by silicon dioxide content" to emphasise the point raised by User:Mamayuco. I also suggest that a separate template should be created for alkaline igneous rocks. GeoWriter (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank for the input GeoWriter. A compromise is better than an edit war, and I am open to it. Still I need to make the point that the word "subalkaline" is implicitly present when we talk about "common" igneeous rocks, that is the ignous rocks that prevail in LIPs, arcs, the ocean floor and the surface of Mars and the Moon. I just think we should not confuse ordinary non-specialists with the alkaline series rocks nor presenting the world's most common ignous rocks with the strange label "subalkaline", calling them "common" is just enough. Mamayuco (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there any sources that describe what a "common" igneous rock is? Here it describes trachyte as "a common rock in many volcanic regions worldwide". Volcanoguy 03:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is a selection, is that not obvious? You cannot decide by your own what is common and what is not. Subalkaline rock are as fact more common than alkaline rocks. If Volcanogoy or any other user wants to introduce changes it is paramount must seek consensus whenever there are objections, that's a basic rule of Wikipedia. Mamayuco (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mamayuco: Once again where is a source that describes what a "common" igneous rock is? And where is a source that makes the claim that subalkaline rocks are more common than alkaline rocks? You can't just force your opinion on other users as a "fact" with nothing backing your argument because that would count as original research and Wikipedia is not the place for that. I already gave a source that describes trachyte as a common rock in many volcanic regions worldwide. So until you can provide sources backing your own claims I am not buying your argument.

Also it appears that you are a fairly new user on Wikipedia. To be honest I find it rather irony that a fairly new user is telling me, an experienced user, that I "cannot decide by my own what is common and what is not" since it is you who is deciding what is common and what is not. I'm using sources backing my claims. You? Not so much. It is also worthy to note that at least some rocks in the template are not always subalkaline. For example, alkaline basalts exist (source) and so do peralkaline rhyolites (source). So this template is not just about subalkaline rocks. Volcanoguy 00:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that User:Sietecolores changed the title from "Igneous rocks classified by silicon dioxide content" to "COMMON igneous rocks classified by silicon dioxide content" on December 29, 2015 without discussion. See here. Volcanoguy 01:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A source for the relative abundance of alkaline igneous rocks is Fitton J.G. and Upton, B.J. (editors) (1987) Alkaline Igneous Rocks, Geological Society of London Special Publication 30, page ix which states:

"Volumetrically, alkaline rocks account for less than one per cent of all igneous rocks. Despite this, their remarkable mineralogical diversity has brought them repeatedly to the attention of petrologists and mineralogists, with the result that alkaline rocks account for about half of all igneous rock names. Sorensen (1974) lists no fewer than 400 alkaline rock types. This diversity springs largely from an abundance of alkalis and deficiency in silica which together generate a large number of mineral species not stable in more silica-rich, alkali-poor magmas. However, a large part of the attention given to alkaline rocks is due to their characteristic high concentrations of incompatible or large-ion lithophile elements (LILE). These are often of more than academic interest as most of the world's resources of niobium, tantalum and the rare-earth elements are found in or around alkaline igneous rock bodies."

I do not regard the "Memim Encylopedia" (cited by User:Volcanoguy to support "trachyte as "a common rock in many volcanic regions worldwide") as a reliable source because it is unsourced. It also appears not to have been copy-edited - the quality of the English in many of its articles is extremely poor even to the point of being unintelligible, which I think goes against it when assessing reliability. GeoWriter (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputing the term "common" in the title now (several months after the change was made) seems to be an act of bad faith. (Anyways the original title was different). Why was it not objected then? Both the concept of common and of silica content, that defines the template make little sense of including alkaline rocks, since neither are they common nor are they well defined by silica content. I tend to agree with the last post of GeoWriter and its excerpt. Mamayuco (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason it was not objected is because it was not noticed. Listing only "common" rocks in this template does not make any sense. People who are not familiar with igneous rocks are very likely not to have heard of at least half of those listed in the template anyway. I remember when I first got interested in geology I had never heard of any of the them except for granite and kimberlite. By the way, how is kimberlite a "common" igneous rock? Kimberlites are present mainly as small pipes and dikes. Maybe I should start a new template that lists ALL igneous rocks, which would make the current template nearly redundant. Volcanoguy 01:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could say the same for lamproites. As the article clearly states, lamproites are geographically widespread yet are volumetrically insignificant. Same for komatiites, which are limited only to Precambrian cratons. This is just more proof that the template was not intended for only common igneous rocks. Volcanoguy 06:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are categories to be used if the purpose is to access any igneous rock article. What the template is doing is for each silica range listing the most common rocks. Mamayuco (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to this 2004 document, ultramafic rocks "are uncommon on the surface of the modern Earth". Why would uncommon igneous rocks be listed in a template that includes only common igneous rocks? Volcanoguy 12:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1) Do I need to remind you of Earth's mantle is ultramafic?

2) The template has so far included the most common rocks for each silica range. I do not see any reason to change that. Mamayuco (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fail to see how rocks in the mantle are important enough to be included in this template given the fact that the igneous rocks in this template are on the surface of the planet. I'm going on ahead to create the broader template since nobody wants to co-operate. Volcanoguy 11:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volcanoguy, creating a new template because nobody agrees with your arbitrary changes is a rather poor answer and a way to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Mamayuco (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]