Talk:List of types of limestone

Comment

Many of these are not individual "types" of limestone but merely names of geological units (formations, members, etc.).
(above unsigned comment made on 1 February 2012‎ by 99.117.12.73)

Yes, any such list as 'types of limestone' is likely to end up as something of a mish-mash! It's insufficiently defined and I'm not sure quite what the solution is. Geopersona (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we do two things; (1.) remove all of the items that are the official names of geological units (formations, members, etc.) and (2.) separate the remaining names into the names that are categories of limestone, e.g. coquina, coral rag, chalk, shelly limestone, and so forth, and those names that are the common / trade names of building stones, e.g. Cotham Marble, Kettle Stone, Istrian stone, an so forth. The latter can be further subdivided according geographic location. Paul H. (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be a very useful approach, Paul H. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't previously been aware but the Ostracod Limestone seems to be an older name for what is now the Kilmaluag Formation - it highlights the parallel issue of there being various names for the same things over time, according to different sources,academic or otherwise - could be fun trying to make sense of all this! thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

First, both the Ostracod Limestone and the Paludina scotch limestones, are older names of the Kilmaluag Formation. I was thinking of turning Ostracod Limestone into a redirect of Kilmaluag Formation. The official name of this unit is now the Kilmaluag Formation as described in:

A J M Barron, G K Lott, J B Riding, 2012, Stratigraphical framework for the Middle Jurassic strata of Great Britain and the adjoining continental shelf. Geology and Landscape Programme Research Report RR/11/06 Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey 187 pp.

Also look at Browsing downloads in "BGS stratigraphical framework and lithodemic scheme reports. and charts". It can be quite fun trying to make sense of it all.

Finally, is it alright if I attempt at making the changes that I describe above? Paul H. (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed those framework reports can be fun - I've referred to various of them on numerous occasions - the naming of parts is quite a minefield in stratigraphy and they do help. And as to going ahead - please give it a go! cheers Geopersona (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Slight re-ordering

I second the main complaint above, namely that the lists by country fail to identify the actual generic type of limestone. I feel this is a major shortcoming, stemming from the use of {{annotated link}} which parrots the wp:short description of that article: some of these make no sense at all in the current context. For example, "Cotswold stone – Protected area mostly in South West EnglandPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets" is in a fact a redirect to a sub-section of the main Cotswolds article, rather than a description of the oolitic limestone found there. I know, that's where I live: entry updated.

I moved the list of Generic Types to the top of the article, since this is the only list of actual types of limestone: the rest, I'm afraid, is just an undifferentiated uninformative mess of names lacking the useful information which the article title implies.

In order to make the article worthwhile, someone(s) will have to read each article and identify the generic type of limestone: and then either update its short description, or use a standard WL and manually improve the definition in this article. I wish it was me, but I'm engaged on many other tasks, not all on WP. Best, MinorProphet (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)