Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

I've started a discussion at Talk:San Francisco volcanic field#Farallon plate subduction?, because there has been new material added to the article that makes a claim that subduction of the Farallon plate may have caused the volcanic field. There is a paper cited that may (tangentially?) support the claim, but I'm not sure. This may be WP:SYNTH. It would be great if experts from this WikiProject could look at the paper and decide whether it adequately support the claim? Thanks for any help! — hike395 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to take a look at Mansfield Natural Gas Field? I came across it from Category:Ohio articles missing geocoordinate data and it clearly has some issues, but I don't have the geology knowledge to adequately evaluate it. The vast majority of the article - and all of the sources - seem to be about wider geology rather than the supposed topic of the article. I can't even verify the existence of the natural gas field; the only few sentences in the article about it are uncited. The images, despite their captions in the article, are also about wider geology. Is the article salvageable under a new title, or should it join so many other WikiEd creations in the dustbin? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete Not an expert, I'm just looking at the sources/looking for sources. Nothing on Google Scholar/Web search. Not a notable topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

See Talk:Nördlinger_Ries#Merge_proposal. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There is an {{expert needed}} tag on Colombian emeralds § Geology and characteristics of 'Colombian' emeralds; it seems that WP:GEM is marked defunct so I thought I'd ask here. The article as a whole has a somewhat promotional tone, but that can be fixed as long as the mineralogy checks out. Arlo James Barnes 07:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking about creating a requested article about loess dolls / loess kindchen. I have two questions?

1. Are loess dolls / loess kindchen notable enough to warrent a separate Wikipedia article? Or should it be part of the Concretion article?

2. If loess dolls / loess kindchen merit a stand alone Wikipedia article, should it be titled either Loess doll, Loess dolls, or Loess kindchen? Paul H. (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

There are two relevant questions. Is it notable? Should it have a separate article? I don't see any particular reason to doubt its notability, but as a type of concretion, until there's sufficient material to make the concretion article overweighted or overlong it seems better to keep it with the other types of concretion. A counterargument might be if the material was focussed on the cultural rather the geological nature of the phenomenon.

Google ngrams show loess kindchen to be the commoner term compared to loess doll. I wondered whether a possible broader alternative (clay concretion, loess concretion, cool hardened clay concretion) would be better, but google ngrams shows these to be rarer.

"redirects are cheap", so you can make one term a redirect (or both it you put the material in concretion). Lavateraguy (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Can this template be changed to 'Ma' rather than 'million years ago'? It looks odd on the tables on the Geologic time scale page when the rest of the article uses Ma. Thanks Silica Cat (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hunter Region#Requested move 14 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)