Talk:Fold (geology)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 3 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ekgeo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article to include...

Should this article be expanded to explain the differences between the different classes of folds? Class 1 a,b,c Class 2 and Class 3 folds should probably be better explained and perhaps pictures can be found. I think the short 3 line explanation is pretty convoluted. Mortalfunk (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this page very poor at explaining to the general reader how these folds are formed: tectonic plates? Glaciers? What is the source of the pressure causing the folding? Too much technical jargon and not enough communication with the reader.Gobadan (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

we (Alejandro_Guevara_Alday and I) would like to make some few changes regarding the structure of this article and add additional definitions to make this article more accessible to all readers irrespective of their background. Illustrative pictures/photos could be added where needed. Ekgeo (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I everyone! As my fellow commented up, we are doing some changes in the general structure of this Wikipedia article, first we found out that the main description of this article seems quite similar to one .pdf avaliable also on internet, who wants to check it by themself can follows the next link: Probably original text from where description comes

We are also adding new figures and photos to clarify all the fold components, for instance, instead to use two figures to illustrate them we created a new one to show all, later we are going to add so many photos as we can to illustrate each type of fold.

Please, if you want to see what we are doing please don't hesite to visit our sandbox and give us some feedback Alejandro_Guevara_Alday and Ekgeo sandbox, all your comment will be welcome Alejandro Guevara Alday (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

A fold could be represented by a class of continuous transformations of a plane which do not preserve the distances between points.

Not in all cases. Folding mechanisms can be cylindrical equal-volume deformation, or assymmetric folding which does not preserve volume and relationships (isogonal distance). So, don't over-generalise. Rolinator 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add clarifying picutes soon. Amunchie 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fold (geology)

In keeping with the relatively recent name changes to the articles Fault (geology), Lineation (geology), Shear (geology), Foliation (geology) and several others, I thought it was probably right to rename this page this as well. If there are no objections, I'll do this in a few days time. Mikenorton 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming is based upon commonly used names. The parenthesis is used for disambiguation. I know in the field this is abbreviated to "fold", but is "geological fold" a more widely used term? (SEWilco 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Google scholar restricted to the phrase "geological fold" returns only 32 hits, whereas a general fold geology search returns 57,000 hits. I would opt for the Fold (geology) name. Vsmith 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found similar results. Looks like the name should be changed. (SEWilco 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd be very happy to see the change. I've been meaning to propose it myself, but never got around to it. The term "geological fold" is rarely if ever used by geologists - the geological part being implied by context. Zamphuor 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isoclinal

there is a word in this article I want to createin here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarix of Tajun (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 September 2009‎

The word isocline (and also isoclinal) is used in both mathematics and geology with different meanings. I have created a redirect, Isocline (geology), to the section here on fold tightness, and I have added a hatnote to the isocline article. Links in geological articles to "isocline" or "isoclinal" can usefully be changed to use "isocline (geology)". I do not know how important the idea of an isocline is in geology, perhaps it should have its own section (in which case the redirect should be changed), or even its own article. While exploring where to send the redirect, I found there are also separate articles for syncline and anticline, and I think they could be improved by reorganisation or merging. JonH (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and a good solution. An isoclinal fold is just a geometric description, so I don't think a separate section, let alone an article would be justified. As to anticline and syncline, they should I think remain separate, but agree that they need some work. Mikenorton (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining "synsedimentary"

Having read about lithification, synclines, and what syn- means, I'm still having trouble to understand what synsedimentary folds are, in the passage "Synsedimentary folds are those due to slumping of sedimentary material before it is lithified" at the very beginning.

Can this be clarified by a photo, illustration or explained in more detail with non-technical language?

I marked the passage with {{jargon-inline}} to wake the attention of more expert editors, please remove it when the passage is clarified. ~ Nelg (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synsedimentary (or syndepositional, a term which is also used) describes something happening during the deposition of sediments, a related term is "growth fold". I'll try to improve the language. Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the first use of synsedimentary to the wiktionary entry and added a bit to the 'Sedimentary folding' section to explain the usage. I hope that helps, let me know if that's not the case. Mikenorton (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. It cleared a lot, thanks! There's still a lot of intertextuality and referencing to structures or processes in geoscience-articles that are difficult to understand due to lack of images or animations. I have rudimentary skills of drawing vectors though, so I could contribute myself in subjects that I can understand. ~ Nelg (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of title

As previously discussed on this page, (admittedly in 2007), the term "geological fold" is not common. Google Scholar now returns just 188 hits for that precise term compared to roughly a million for 'fold geology'. As this is not a "natural disambiguation", the title should be returned to how it was before. Mikenorton (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Natural disambiguation" just means using a standard English phrase (without a parenthetical term) to refer to the subject. It doesn't have to be the most commonly used name either. "Fold geology" is not a grammatical English phrase, and in fact the only results for that exact phrase appear to be accidental couplings such as "...pressure solution in a buckle fold: Geology, v. 3". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the guideline "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". "Geological Fold" is not commonly used, which is why it was changed to "fold (geology)" back in 2007. Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, the move from "Fold (geology)" to "Geological Fold" is a case of trying to fix something that was not broken to begin with. I agree with Mikenorton that "fold (geology)" is much more understandable than "Geological Fold" and should not have been made at all and the title should be returned to how it was before. Besides, this move should not have been made without first discussing it. Paul H. (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical disambiguators are Wikipedia-specific, so I think it's useful to replace them with plain English titles wherever possible. One reason is intelligibility for visually impaired readers; screen reader software would read Fold (geology) aloud as Fold geology, which is a nonsense title. Geological fold may not be the most common name for the topic, but I was able to find both it and geologic fold used in several quality sources:

Passive amplication of geological fold will tend to dominate folding in layered rocks when the contrast in mineral properties of the layered rocks is small.
— Price, Neville J.; Cosgrove, John W. (1990). Analysis of Geological Structures.

The theory of plastic deformations based on a model of dislocation field density has been applied in some papers to the case of geological fold under the specific conditions of thin stratification.
— Teisseyre, Roman, ed. (1995). Theory of Earthquake Premonitory and Fracture Processes.

The incipient growth of a geological fold in such a material is modelled as a problem of plate bending.
— Leroy, Yves M.; Sassi, William (2000). in Lehner, F.K.; Urai, J.L. (eds.). Aspects of Tectonic Faulting: In Honour of Georg Mandl.

Table 2.5: Geologic Fold Structures and Characteristics
— Hunt, Roy E. (2007). Characteristics of Geologic Materials and Formations.

A geologic fold is commonly segmented as a result of intersecting differing lithologic polygons.
— Soller, David R., ed. (1998). Digital Mapping Techniques '98: Workshop Proceedings.

Both terms seem common and clear enough that these sources didn't need to give any detailed explanation when using them. And geological fold is certainly unambiguous, so I think WP:NCDAB criteria are resonably met. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the earlier change seems to have been that fold, full stop, is more commonly used in specialized literature and by professional geologists. But Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so titles should be as intelligible as possible to a wide readership. And the phrase geological fold was already being used in the lead sentence. All the name change did was match the title to the existing text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better convinced by MikeNorton's argument. Vote for revert to Fold (geology). DanHobley (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DanHobley: Talk page discussions don't normally proceed by majority vote. Can you explain why you find MikeNorton's argument more convincing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They do however, proceed by consensus, which in this case has clearly not been established. Mikenorton (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks of WP:SILENCE plus a single "me too" comment doesn't imply much of a lasting dispute. What do you think about my points concerning intelligibility for a general audience, screen-reader users, and the fact that geological fold was already in the lead sentence?

One of the sources cited in the article even uses the term geological fold and geological folding. A fold in this context is clearly a geological structure, so even if geological fold is not much used in specialized academic writing (because it would be needlessly repetitive), it seems like a sensible enough descriptive title for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what WP:SILENCE actually says. To quote "A corollary is that if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so" - well three of us have said so, so that does not constitute silence. Note also that it says "As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent". I reiterate you have not established a consensus for your name change. Mikenorton (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the clear consensus to move it back to "fold (geology)", I have done so. Mikenorton (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wade in 'after the event' I will add my support for the reversion to Fold (geology), which follows the convention I would expect to be used right across Wikipedia for topics like this. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "One reason is intelligibility for visually impaired readers; screen reader software would read Fold (geology) aloud as Fold geology", I think this problem would be better addressed at the Wikipedia Manual of Style talk pages because it affects all Wikipedia articles that currently use a parenthetical qualifier in their title. Another point is that "geological" is a spelling used mostly outside North America (where "geologic" is used very much more often). "Fold (geology)" avoids problems with varieties of English. GeoWriter (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

The recent changes to this article are fairly major and it would be good to know what the overall plan and rationale is for the changes. I've reverted one edit, which removed the illustration of an extensional rollover fold without any explanation. Mikenorton (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who made the recent changes (Alejandro_Guevara_Alday and Ekgeo (talk) left their intensions under the top subject on this page rather than starting a new section at the bottom, oops

Christierowe (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]