Talk:Structural geology

Untitled

The study of rocks, even deformed, is the petrology if you are interested in its history and petrography if you are interested by the description of their present state. Structural geology is a study of deformation of rocks at a small scale. In French, its translation "géologie structurale" is the study of large scale to small scale deformation. It's synonymous to tectonics.

Small and Large scale

What is the limit between small and large scale structures ?

What is the difference (in behavior of the rock) between small and large scale structures due to the deformation of rocks ?

I do not understand the difference between structural geology and tectonics. My mother language is french.

Article is quite bad because it describes structural geology as something which deals mainly with deformations and faults. Structural geology is actually part of geology which deals with form, internal structure and arrengement of rocks. If I want to say it shortly, then I would say that structural geology deals with geological structures and they doesn't need to be deformed or faulted. Difference between structural geology and geotectonics is mainly scale. Geotectonics deals with bigger structures, for examples lithospheric plates but structural geology's object can be even microscopic. In the middle, they are overlapping terms, so there is difference although quite fuzzy. I think my english is not good enough to rewrite this article but maybe I'll try if somebody will correct my grammatical mistakes. Siim 19:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, we'll help with the language errors. I added quite a bit of the current article after the question above was asked, but it could some re-writing for clarity to a non-geologist. Vsmith 22:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Geomorphology vs. Structrural geology

Plz see Talk:Geomorphology mikka (t) 18:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Conventions

Hopefully I got the update on structural conventions right. The first few paragraphs are wholly unsuitable to go before such sterling work. It is a clunky, and unwieldy and on the whole poorly written definition and could definitely do with breaking into sections and expanding upon them in turn. It seems to be a cnsiderable problem with wikiers, who like to cram everything into two badly written pragraphs for brevity's sakes and 'to make it understandable to the lay person'. But that doesn't mean it should be impenetrable to people who actually know something about it. So God help the layperson.

Its my next task. This isn't just random bitchiness. I might even be tempted to go through and append cleanup tags o thins like this infuture.... Rolinator 15:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pole?

I found this on the Pole disambiguation page. It doesn't really belong there. (It's very similar to something else I've offered to Talk:Crystallography.) I offer it to you to include on this page, or some other page, or no page at all. Up to you! Thanks. Ewlyahoocom 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In structural geology, a pole is a line perpendicular to a structural surface (e.g. bedding plane, fault plane, foliation surface), that is used to plot that surface on a stereographic net. This allows the 3D aspect of the surface to be plotted in 2 dimensions.

Thanks, this has been languishing a bit. I should one day get round to whipping up something on stereographic projection of geological data. But that comes after other more contentious issues.Rolinator

God Roebuck Trout Effect

Who else apart from the contributor has heard of the slickensides being called this? As far as it goes in my neck of the woods (Australia) it is simply known as "stair stepping" or "slickenlines". Besides which, a quick google search turned up no evidence of it and this isn't in any textbooks I've ever read, so if the "Trout Effect" is a local vernacular to some geographic region or some professor's wild eccentricities I'd ask for this to be removed, or at least put into a slickensides page.

Slicks are also more correctly a geological lineation anyway, and this page is a discussion of a much broader field of geology, and should not become bogged down in the minutiae of the discipline.

Thought?Rolinator 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed same. Vsmith 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of Intro, Reorganization

I'm looking to gather comments about re-organizing and writing new material for this article. Here is my plan, tell me if you disagree / would like to help / have comments. It will probably take me a while to do, since this is what I do in my less-than-plentiful free time, but I think it will help.

1. The introduction to the article seems convoluted.

The problem: The three opening paragraphs seem to argue amongst one another, about whether it is just the distribution of bodies, their deformation, or both... and the opening sentence goes straight into fabrics without discussing anything in detail.

My take on this: Structural geology is the study of the modern geometries of deformed rocks, and the deformational histories that led to their creation. Structural geologists use modern rock geometries to understand the kinematics (strain) that led to that result, and the stress situation that led to it. (I will use a consensus of good sources to back myself up, as many (especially introductory) geology books disagree on semantics, possibly out of a desire to present material simply.)

2. The article jumps around all over the place, with valuable info, but not in any order, and going straight to measurement and geologic terranes without even defining faults, folds, deformational styles, etc. I would like to try to make the article more coherent by providing a process-based framework (stress and strain, ductile and brittle deformation zones in the crust, faulting and folding, extensional and compressional structures, forces that drive deformation, etc.) and THEN go into more detailed descriptions of the techniques and evidence used.

Awickert (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like no objections. OK - come this weekend, or whenever I procrastinate what I should be doing, I'll start editing / reorganizing. Awickert (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just go for it, I'll try to chip in along the way. Mikenorton (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - took a first shot - definitely too short and too crude in some places, but I think the beginning is more coherent. If anyone wants to change what I've done, it won't hurt my feelings. No references now - I'll grab a book or something and start adding them in soon. Awickert (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In the method section, should we add the tool for modeling the strain by some procedures?. These tools help the researcher processing the data quickly! I agree that you re-organize this article.Tranletuhan (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure - that would be great - I haven't given the article attention in too long. Awickert (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)