Talk:Sedimentary structures

Bedform vs. Flow chart

I added the bedform chart from the bedform page... not sure if it is needed here, or if the link is enough. Thoughts? --Qfl247 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ripples vs. Ripple Marks

After exploring the ripple marks entry, I would very much like to see the title and terminology changed from "ripple mark" to "ripple" to conform to modern usage. Although the two words are considered synonyms by some, the formal definition of the word (Jackson, 1997) indicates that tha the word "ripple" refers to the actual bedform and "ripple mark" for a surface that has a texture attributed to ripples. Using the word for the bedform would be preferable, because the terminology could then be parallel for all bedform entries: ripples, dunes, upper plane beds, antidunes, chutes and pools, etc. For example, there are dunes (bedform) and cross-beds (sedimentary structure), but no such thing as "dune marks."

The suggested change would bring the entry in line with the terminology used in:

• Jackson, J.A., 1997, Glossary of Geology (4th ed), American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA, 769 p.
• Prothero, D.R., and Schwab, F., 2004, Sedimentary Geology (2nd Ed.), Freeman, New York, 557 p.
• Boggs, S., 2006, Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (4th Ed.),Pearson, New York, 662 p.

Rygel, M.C. (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be OK with both, and the above explination, on the page. Qfl247 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Syneresis cracks

added syneresis cracks under bedding plane structures and created a new page for them. let me know how it looks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithec192a (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks so much! I should mention that rather than writing a term paper, I tasked my 300-level Sedimentary Geology class with creating/expanding selected geology articles in Wikipedia ... they created stand alone entries on a SUNY Potsdam-hosted wiki and can earn extra credit by integrating some of their content in to Wikipedia. There are likely to be 20-30 new editors making contributions over the next three weeks. Although this might create a bit of clean up and busy work, I am optimistic that it will provide a meaningful contribution. Rygel, M.C. (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So good to see faculty putting students to work on Wikipedia, Michael. I do the same with my paleo and sed/strat classes. Good luck with yours! Wilson44691 (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cotham Marble?

Would Cotham Marble, at least for the purposes of WP categorization, be classed as a sedimentary structure? IMHO, yes. It is a distinctive sedimentary formation, formed by sedimentary infilling around some other less well understood (Stromatolite?) forms. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I was reluctant to revert your adding the "Sedimentary structures" category to the Cotham Marble article earlier today, but I decided on balance to remove it, at least temporarily. I was going to raise the issue on the Cotham Marble talk page because the edit summary did not allow much explanation, but you raised this discussion here before I had a chance to do so.

I think it's debatable as to whether Cotham Marble is a sedimentary structure or not. I think it depends, among other things, on whether the category "Sedimentary structures" should contain only articles that are actual structures or also include any examples. On the one hand, categorising Cotham Marble as a sedimentary structure would categorise the entire stratigraphic unit of the Cotham Member as a sedimentary structure, which would not be a good idea. On the other hand, Cotham Marble does display distinctive sedimentary structures. I'd feel happier about categorising Cotham Marble as a sedimentary structure, if the Cotham Marble article was edited to clarify the separation of Cotham Marble as a stratigraphic unit and rock type, and "Cotham Marble structure" as a sedimentary structure. GeoWriter (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you see "Cotham Marble" as? A site, and thus a stratigraphic unit, or as a small-scale structure which is only found at a limited site (it's found outside Cotham too, but nearby)? I see it as both, but primarily the second, and thus belongs within the cat. There's no reason why it couldn't also be discovered as an indistinguishable material in (e.g.) Cheltenham in a group of "the Montpelier series". It would then clearly be a sedimentary structure if the name was no longer so site-specific.

Rewording to clarify the distinction would be useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)