Talk:Geology of Great Britain

Thanks

Assuming it is the same anon behind all those edits, good work... I'm impressed with the work you've done on this page... though all those red links must look tempting for you to fill in.. :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right, it was and it is :-) ! May get some time soon... 10:04 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that this article be moved to Geology of the British Isles, a more natural title given its content, or be cropped and moved to Geology of Britain, which currently redirects to here.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Is there a chance someone from here could take a quick look at British Isles#Geology and make sure it is an appropriate summary? EricR 16:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

more work to be done

Just popped in looking for any information about the Slyne-Erris Trough, since I'm going to be working there next month. Clearly a lot of work to be done. The major point that springs out from the page as it stands is that it refers to the "British Isles", but seems to ignore the western of the islands, Eire. I'll have a look around and see if I can come up with a list of structural elements, an appropriate map, and so on. A Karley 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, we are being accurate when we talk about the British Isles. Finally! If only the irredentists over on British Isles could accept the limits of Britain.... 193.1.172.163 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming consensus?

Paleogene and Neogene: Aren't we now recommended to use the terms "Paleogene" and "Neogene" rather than "Tertiary" and "Quaternary"? The current Geologic time scale seems to imply that. The Neogene would run from the start of the Miocene to the present, i.e. the Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene and Holocene epochs. I realise the older terms may be more familiar to readers, but Wikipedia is meant to be up to date etc, and the old terms could still be mentioned in passing. Any votes for or against please? ML. 15.10.06.

Well, no-one seems to be objecting, so I'll go ahead. ML. 22.10.06.

Picture?

Although the title and article infer the British Isles, the only picture in the article is that of Great Britain and outlying islands. I think it would add more to the article if a larger image was used - one inclusive of both Ireland/Northern Ireland and Shetland, if at all possible. Mouse Nightshirt 18:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres no point in doing that since the page is about Great Britain and not the U.K 125.237.108.15 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No key on map, so I can't understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.100.36 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with ages of rocks of the Mendip Hills

Hi, Could any experts in UK geology help me with the Mendip Hills article. It is currently an FA candidate & another editor has queried the accuracy of the geology section. The article says :

"The Mendip Hills are the most southerly Carboniferous Limestone Upland in Britain and are comprised of three major anticlinal structures, each with a core of older Devonian sandstone and Silurian volcanic rocks. The latter are quarried for use in road construction and as a concrete aggregate.

200 million years ago the Mendips were considerably higher and steeper than they are today. Since then weathering has resulted in a range of surface features, including gorges, dry valleys, screes and swallets. These are complemented underground by a large number of caves, including Wookey Hole, both beneath the plateau and at the base of the southern escarpment. There are also limestone pavements, karst and a number of gorges, most famously Cheddar Gorge and Burrington Combe. Springs, a number of which deposit tufa, are a particular feature of the eastern part of the hills."

& the challenge is:

"Geology If it's Carboniferous Limestone, there's something wrong—or insufficiently explained—about the reference to "200 million years ago" (which is roughly Triassic/Jurassic). You'd better check this. It's not necessarily wrong, but the Carboniferous was roughly 360-300 Mya. US geological usage divides the Carboniferous into Mississipian & Pennsylvanian: I suggest you make it clear in which period the Mendips were formed "

Does anyone have the expertise to edit/ correct/ explain the article? Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For the hills to be 'higher and steeper 200 million years ago' they must have existed (as land) then, i.e. they must (now) consist of rock more than 200 million years old. Unfortunately someone seems to have muddied the water since the above comments by altering '200' to '200 to 300'. For the hills to consist of Carb. limestone they must clearly have been under water in Carboniferous times. Pterre (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Renaming this page

Hi, while this page calls itself the "Geology of the British Isles", it's actually a Geology of Britain. There are only a few references at all to Ireland and these are obviously put in as late additions that don't affect the overall content. Unless there's a reason not to, this page should be renamed "Geology of Great Britain". 81.32.183.150 08:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is redirected from "Geology of the UK" and from "Geology of Britain". The page's contents obviously refer to the island of Great Britain and really to nothing else. This page shouldn't be called "Geology of the British Isles". I'll put in a request to move on Friday, unless there's objection here. Hughsheehy 12:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be more constructive to concentrate efforts on improving the coverage of Irish geology within the article, rather than in name changes. While Irish geology coverage in the article is certainly inadequate, to solve that problem by deleting it altogether is hardly an improvement.--86.31.232.172 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has apparently been misnamed for several years and no editors capable or willing to improve the coverage of Irish Geology have appeared in all that time. It's time to rename. 83.39.134.72 10:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

British spelling

Since this is an article about the British Isles it would be appropriate to use British English. I'm thinking in particular about Palaeogene, Palaeocene (with separate letters, not the æ thingumywhatsit), as used on current BGS maps for example . I was also brought up on Palaeomagnetic, Palaeozoic, Caenozoic, Palaeontology, etc. Any dissent? Pterre (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me interested parties might not bother to look at this from their watch list as I followed it soon after with another edit elsewhere on the page. So I'm editing it again. Last chance to object! Pterre (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename

As far as I can see, the article refers only to Great Britain, and the previous discussion on a rename/move had gone nowhere but never been opposed. Let me know if there's discussion. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted map

Does anyone know the history leading up to the deletion of the geological map formerly illustrating this article? It seemed to be a scan of an old map that should be well out of copyright, and we have a number of maps derived from it still in use. Pterre (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is the map legend?

I was interested to note what the geology was where I lived. However the map used to illustrate this page is wonderfully colourful but has no indents to say what the different rocks types are making pretty but pointless as a reference aid.

I make my point based on being a layman and with no formal knowledge of geology.

It needs fixing with a legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.136.253 (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the same problem - beautiful colours but what do they refer to? Richerman (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Map At Top Useless Without A Key

Map At Top is Useless Without A Key —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.171.227 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's corrrect, the color legend is missing. --89.247.203.163 (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to the various calls for a key to be supplied for the map, I have attempted that by way of captioning, not having the ability to provide a colour key. Doubtless someone can improve on my descriptions of the colours though there's a difficulty with some of the colours being very similar and there being what appear to be errors, at least to my eye: the Permo-triassic sedimentary rocks of the Vale of Eden for example are similar in colour to volcanics of other ages and the Devonian of Scotland is a different colour from that of the Anglo-Welsh basin. Anyway it's a start, until a better map comes along. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where should "Geology of the British Isles" redirect to?

Currently it redirects to British Isles#Geology, however, there is no such section on the British Isles page.

Should it be changed to British Isles#Geography (which does exist), or to Geology of Great Britain (Its discussion page currently redirects to this one)?

Wardog (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The latter, definitely. Pterre (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this needs addressing; "Geology of the British Isles" still redirects to the British Isles article, where there is only a minimum of information. In order to reach this page (where the majority of the information is), readers have to follow a 'See also' from the British Isles 'Geography' section. There's a danger that some readers may not find this page. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We have Geology of Wales, Geology of England and Geology of Scotland articles as well as Geology of Great Britain whilst Geology of the United Kingdom redirects to Geography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Geology and both Geology of Ireland and Geology of Northern Ireland redirect to Geography of Ireland - there is amongst all this , some degree of repetition. There's even a Geology of South Wales (which I've proposed be merged into the article covering all of Wales) and there's a somewhat 'stubby' Geology of Europe too. How much do we need - and to what extent should we simply refer readers on to a limited number of higher quality articles?

PS Thanks PaleCloudedWhite for tidying up the errors I left in the article - bit careless on my part - more sleep required! cheersGeopersona (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This question might be more intractable than I had previously thought - I hadn't realised that there were so many articles within this general arena. To complicate things even more, a quick perusal of previous comments on this talk page led me to look at past versions of the article, and I found that initially it was called 'Geology of the United Kingdom', then it was changed to 'Geology of the British Isles', and then to 'Geology of Great Britain'. This article seems to be reflecting the collective identity crisis of its islands' inhabitants! I think the problem for this article is that whereas it began by being about the geology of a defined political area (similar to Geology of England or Geology of Monmouthshire), it has sort of side-stepped into being an article about an area which is more geographically defined, and hence less true to its original concept. I think if it is accepted (and I think it is) that politically-defined areas can have articles about the geology within their boundaries, then I propose that actually this article reverts to having its original title: "Geology of the United Kingdom". I appreciate that objections might be raised about the consequent awkwardness of describing the geology of Ulster but not of the rest of Ireland, but this cannot in practise be any more awkward than describing the geology of a particular county and not mentioning the geology of its neighbouring counties. Is this making sense? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion we either need the "British Isles" (or some politically neutral equivalent term), or we need "Great Britain" (the island). "United Kingdom" (which has already changed its meaning through time and might soon cease to exist if the Scots Nats get their way) makes no sense as a geological unit, any more than the individual counties do. Pterre (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a bit of a re-think after posting my last comment, and am inclined to agree with Pterre about treating the GB/UK more as a geological unit, although my reasoning is perhaps different. I don't see it as particularly problematic to have an article about the geology of a politically-defined area like a country or county, because I think non-geologists are more likely to read about the history of rocks etc. if it relates to 'their' area, and if they are written well such articles can thus provide an entry point to the subject. However in my view there is a specific problem with the geology of the UK/GB etc. for 2 reasons: firstly, there isn't sufficient differentiation in the scale of analysis between looking at the UK/GB and looking at its constituent countries (Wales, England etc), which leads to a certain amount of repitition (as noted above), and secondly, the issue of what exactly the UK/GB is in terms of political identity is, of course, a bit of a hot potato. Hence I think I now favour going for a politically neutral version of 'Geology of the British Isles' (which would probably be something like 'Geology of the Atlantic Archipelago', if that's the favoured term); this would sit between the articles covering the constituent countries ('Geology of England/Wales/Scotland' etc.) and the larger scale 'Geology of Europe'. Of course, such an approach would mean that someone would first have to expand the article to include the geology of the Irish republic.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

New key of the geological map of Great Britain

I have detected the original codes of the colours of the map and used them for the explanation list.

I should have preferred to use a light grey background instead of using a framed rectangle for the white colour.--Ulamm (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected what appeared to be some unexpected and obvious errors in the map key. cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with this map. It seems to have changed from the originally uploaded map and I can find no explanation. For instance, the original has three areas with granite outcrops (red) on a greyish background in the Scottish Highlands, Galloway and West Wales. In the newer version of the maps, the granite areas are three differently colour-coded backgrounds. Also the Highlands background (an orange) doesn't exactly match any of the key colours. This makes me think there is a problem with the current map, but I don't know what the correct map should be. Jts1882 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ulamm in an edit on 6 May 2014 helpfully introduced the coloured box key, replacing one that had purely been descriptive text earlier. It appears that some mismatches between map and key arose at this point though were not picked up on. Someone with more knowledge of colouring in Wikipedia than I have, might attempt a fix! cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from its history, the map itself has not been changed since December 2011.

The reason for my edit of last year was that, in the all-verbal explanation, more colours had been listed, than the map contains. You can read the codes of the colours in the source code of the key. I checked all areas of the map where more colours had been described.

I had noticed that bias, when I tried to translate the key to German.

Of course, I had a problem to reduce the discrimitations in the correct way. My only reference was my (German) school atlas, and that does not show Great Britain as detailed as this map.--Ulamm (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Difficult material to start to work with! Detailed on-line geological detail of all of the United Kingdom is available by using the geological map viewer at http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geologyOfBritain/viewer.html - that ought to resolve any outstanding difficulties. cheers Geopersona (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a nice map, you've linked.

To apply the informations of a more detailed map with a larger scale of classifications on the explanation of the Commons-map, is a challenge, too.

I've detected the colours.

I do not object against any improvement of the text.

If you are ready, I shall start to translate it :) Ulamm (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: About a year ago, I had another geological problem. In the scientific sources on Moray Firth and its side-firths, some forms are derived on a maritime origin, which are common as well in freshwater fjords in the Alps. A typical feature are narrows caused by delta-like deposits of gravel, transported by lateral affluents.--Ulamm (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree there were problems introduced in the 2011 change to colour scheme. Our key has 20 colours. The old version of the map had 20 colours. There are 32 colours (excluding black) in the current map. I have left a note on the editor's talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, the color scheme here added in the key is not completely conform to the one i used when i edited that map (Palette pour la géologie v. 1.0 (Wikigeologic_age_1.0.gpl)). Even if i'm not a specialist of british stratigraphy i guess the problem is limited about the proterozoic series. Surely this file could be useful to distinguish the gross lithology differencies. Regards. Ciaurlec (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I try tentatively to suggest some solutions
1)Vale of Eden: probably the volcanics outcorp are of a bigger extent than that indicated on map by the red spots. So the polylines have to be modified.
2)Devonian outcrops: you could try to look if theese colours refers on different devonian stages (early-midle-late devonian), but it have probaly to be an error of mine.
3)Intrusives: it's probably another mismatch of mine. The legend i used wasn't useful for for non-sedimentariy rocks. I probably was inspired by that to distinguish the various ages.
4)Highlands: here i was sure i used the orange because of neoproterozoic age origin of rocks.
Last but not least: remeber that the map could be useful for similar projects on other languages. In example "Lewisian" (that i tagged as paleoproterozoic) is a local term, by far the more appropriate for an english wikpedia article, but difficultly realtionable to other similar ages outcrops. So please don't change the file only to match the key you use in this arcticle, but consider other usages too. Regards. --Ciaurlec (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have no specialist knowledge in geology, so I don't know the best solution, but I fully support the principle of using uniform colours throughout the Wikipedia projects. In terms of pure data, I see some colours defined in this SVG that are not listed in (Palette pour la géologie v. 1.0 (Wikigeologic_age_1.0.gpl)) (they are: c87137 ffaaaa c81446 ff0000 ffd42a 93ac93 c6afe9). It would be good to have these, and our own key, all in sync. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made a start at improving the legend by adding Neoproterozoic and updating Devonian to cb8c37. This matches the French legend linked above and the map in Devon but areas of Scotland match the previous colour (c87137) – I assume these areas should be changed to match cb8c37?

I could have added Jurassic (e2f4e0) and Permian (f09652) to the legend, but as a non-geologist, I don't know if it makes sense to talk about Jurassic and upper Jurassic in the same list. Is one a subset of the other?

Also, the map has Proterozoic represented as both fb9a94 and 408521. I guess they should all be changed to fb9a94?

I see now that some of the colours are missing from the French legend because they represent non-sedimentary rocks. I think there are still some more mismatched colours to sort out. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If the missing colours are about ignous rocks it could be nice to create some new colours. There is a general agreement in the various geological maps in using reddish tones for acid ignous (i.e. granite); but there is less agreement for the basic ones, that sometimes are depicted with darker tones, sometimes with other shades ranging from reddish-purple, passing blues till turquoises! For the metamorphics there is less more agreement, ranging from fuchsia, to bright greens! I can only suggest to evitate yellows, due to their use in recent sediments, (quaternary, mostly studied by geomorphologists) that are normally unindicated in maps of this scale.

Frenchs develops a coulour key similar to the one used there where systems=periods are defined, as you smartly guessed there are some "subsets" (and some "suprasets" too), due to the difficulty of dating some some outcrops (i.e. Lewisian that is a pre-Cambrian one), or to the great extent of some "subsets" (i.e. Lower cretaceous in the Weald area). So the file you're working to, comprehend such more detailed lithologic definitions (series=epoch), that you could find on the right side of french legend. I think that when possible it could be ok distinguish them, couldn't you add such "distincition" on the key?
PS:I take a look at welsh/scottish devonian: i guess you could merge them.Ciaurlec (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the map

I note that there are outstanding issues with the map eg much of central wales and the English Lake District appear to be formed from Cambrian age rocks whereas in truth these areas are of Ordovician and Silurian age. There may be other errors but these two stood out. Take a look at http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html - interrogate and compare. I'd correct it myself if I could. cheers Geopersona (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Those areas marked Cambrian (dark cyan) should be Ordovician/Silurian. The Cambrian rocks in in northwest Wales (according to the BGS map) are coloured dark green for Proterozoic (according to the key). It's hard to compare maps with such different resolutions, but most of the areas I tried seemed match. The general age gradient in Wales seems OK, it's just wikipedia map seems to have the Wales rocks slightly older. The Welsh map would be in reasonable agreement if the dark green was Cambrian, the dark cyan Ordovician and the pale blue Silurian. But the pale blue in the western Scottish lowlands is Silurian in the BGS map, which is consistent with this view

Unfortunately the uploaded map says own work and gives no source. This is a bigger issue as the map is prominent in the article. The caption Geological Map of Great Britain looks familiar, though, so it might be possible to find the source.   Jts1882 | talk  13:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

With the help of Google I find this map (source). This looks very similar to the uploaded map. It supports the key change I suggested above. However, there are some differences. For instance the eastern coast of East Anglia has more topological detail in the uploaded map, while the linked map has lower topological detail but divides the area into finer time bands. This map seems to be [William Smith's 1815 map https://imgur.com/ttHujfq].

And this low resolution map is close to the uploaded map in topology, but the key is too small. The source page gives Andrew Crombie Ramsay's The Physical Geology and Geography of Great Britain (6th ed, 1894) as the original source.   Jts1882 | talk  13:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)