Talk:Fault block

Spanish Wikipedia

Do you have Wikipidea in Spanish?

Yes. Had you not vandalised the article, I'd have provided a link. However, you're on your own. Argyriou (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result of the discussion was merge. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

---

This looks similar to the Fault-block article. Merge? Joshua Issac (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - the subject matter seems virtually identical. Mikenorton (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Fault block Mike Cline (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Fault-block mountain → Fault-block

• Fault-block is the more general term and this article talks about both the general concept and the specific instance of fault-block mountains. This move will also allow block (geology) to redirect to fault-block without a double redirect. Not all blocks form mountains. --relisting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Bejnar (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The term 'fault-block mountain' is somewhat antiquated (in a similar way to the term fold mountain), so I think that this move would be a good idea, a section on the term would be adequate to cover this older usage I reckon. Mikenorton (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are many fault-blocks which cause no geographical effect on the surface. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but I don't see that it would prevent an article titled 'Fault-block' from discussing fault-block mountains in a separate section, I'm just not sure that there's enough here to justify a standalone article. Mikenorton (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard is correct, there are many fault-blocks which cause no geographical effect on the surface. That is why the article should be about fault-blocks and not about fault-block mountains. Right now fault-block redirects here because of the merger above. After the move we can cleanup the text. --Bejnar (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• At the moment the article is all about the effects on surface geography. If we are to extend the article to discuss the underground part of block-faulting, how would that differ from discussing faulting in general? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pages Fault-block and Fault-block mountain were text-merged on 30 April 2009‎, and Fault-block mountain has been edited meny times since. Page Fault-block was started later independently by someone who likely did not know that page Fault-block mountain existed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't understand the topic, which is probably why I don't understand the objection. Are there fault-blocks that are not landforms, and so "fault-block" would not be correct? I see the lede indicates more than mountains, which is why the current title is not correct. If fault-block is too broad and fault-block mountain is too narrow, would "fault-block landform" be accurate for this topic? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Beneath the surface there are many fault blocks that have no topographic expression, or only do so because of later erosion. A common term in areas of crustal extension is 'tilted fault block'(Google Scholar search), blocks that have been tilted between pairs of extensional faults - such blocks host a significant proportion of the world's oil and gas reserves, as in the Gulf of Suez Rift. Mikenorton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this precise move; support a move to Fault block (currently a redirect to this article). It appears that the article is indeed about fault blocks generally, a topic that is well identified in a Googlebook search on "fault block". Style considerations would rule out the hyphen (see WP:HYPHEN at WP:MOS) in a simple noun phrase "fault block". The hyphen would only be used if the phrase is turned to attributive use, as in the present title or anything of the form "fault-block X". The same Googlebook search shows that Wikipedia style is (as usual) in accord with other best-practice publishing. (I have fixed a couple of attributive uses that lacked hyphens in the article.) Noetica^Tea? 23:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I support Noetica's proposed move to Fault block, and withdraw my original suggestion. --Bejnar (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rhodopen 14.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)