Talk:Geology of Cape Town

The lead

This article had one of the strangest leads I have seen in a Wikipedia article. It began with a summary of the relevance to diving, and then added some stuff about recent climate. Neither subject appeared in the body of the article. It didn't even say where the Cape Peninsula is. According to MOS:INTRO, the lead should provide a summary of the article. I made a start by moving the existing lead into the body and adding a very brief introduction in the lead. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Geological Map

The current geological map that forms the core of the article is, in my opinion, far too detailed, and its legend is illegible even in its original enlarged format. It also does not line up with the information in the article. Please see whether the following map might not serve this article better:

It was created with another article in mind, but I am sure that other maps like this can be found. John Compton from the Geology Department of the University of Cape Town has a special interest in the Geology of the Cape Peninsula and has written several books and pamphlets on the subject. You could approach him for a more meaningful map than the present one. Oggmus (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I made the svg for the original map, and can modify it to work better, or upload a higher definition version, or both, if we can get consensus on what would be best for purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter

I don't have very strong feelings about it either way, except that the present map and its key cannot be enlarged enough to make head or tail of what can be found where. So a higher definition version would be a great improvement. For my own purposes I would love to possess a really detailed map of the geology of the Cape Peninsula, and for that the map you have in your possession would seem ideal. But I wonder whether this level of detail is suitable for a general encyclopaedic article such as this one.

One thing needs to be borne in mind when deciding on which map to use. The land geology described in the text does not go into the fine detail displayed on the map, whereas the marine geology of False Bay goes into considerable detail about the type of sand and gravel found in various areas, but these are not shown on the maps. So I would tend to opt for a simplified geological land map, keeping both cross-sectional maps (one through the isthmus, and one through False Bay). The detail of the False Bay floor can be described in the text as it is now.

Sorry, one last point: the article title is "Marine Geology of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay" - is Marine Geology appropriate when describing the geology of the Peninsula Mountain chain? Could it not be changed to "Geology of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay"? which is what this article is about. Oggmus (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oggmus, the article started out as something I had already written for a dive guide, but never published, and was focused on recreational divers, therefore concentrating on the shoreline and offshore rocky reefs, which is where recreational divers would do most of their dives. I have no objection to expanding the scope and changing the title, but this is something I am not likely to have the time or inclination to do, though I would happily give some input. I will try to upload higher resolution files within the next few days. If this is done the marine aspect of the geology would become a section. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspected that this was the case, judging from some of the comments on this Talk page (and your interests). It is a pity that the article got upgraded to its present format, because I can see that an article on just the geology of False Bay would have had independent value, and interest. Do you know who wrote most of the other material on the land geology of this article? Maybe that person could be persuaded to create a new article on the "Geology of the Cape Peninsula" or incorporate the information into the article on the "Cape Peninsula"?

Of course, if that happened then the map you have provided needs modification, or to be moved to the new article (?) Oggmus (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at the existing image files. The definition seems adequate if you open the full size file files. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm not sure what you have done, but the definition on the geological map at the beginning of the article is really good, and I have downloaded a copy for my own interests for good measure. The map looks terrific. Thanks very much. The article as a whole looks very good, though I would like to see the adjective "Marine" removed from the beginning of the article title - if at all possible. It is a title that no one would type in "blind" (as it it were). So you only land here via other articles in Wiki, which I think is a pity, as it is quite a heavy-weight and important encyclopaedic entry in its own right. Oggmus (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting.

I am going to go with the advice above to expand the scope to the general geology of the greater Cape Town region, starting with renaming to Geology of Cape Town. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)