Talk:Solifluction

Geography

Please note that this article about Solifluction does not fit in the realm of geology. Solifluction and any other surface phenomena fall in the realm of geomorphology, a branch of physical geography. I have a B.Sc. in Physical Geography and an M.Sc. in Remote Sensing and GIS which is a scientific interdisciplinary field in the study of surface features. I will be grateful to contribute in Wikipedia if there is any forum in Remote Sensing. Physical Geography as my undergraduate field is also my favorite topic. Currently I do not know how I can write articles in Wikipedia, please send me tips and guidelines in this regard. Thank you. posted to article 11:20, 20 December 2007 by user:81.90.146.243

the preceeding was moved from the article--Paleorthid (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that although the processes involved in the formation of solifluctate can fall under the realm of geomorphology, the material itself is part of the overlying geology of the landscape. Thus the material is classified as part of the field of geology. Having said that with geography the line between disciplines is often blurred, this is one of those cases. Bsc in Physical geography also, and this falls under my dissertation title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.72.112 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The term gradual is misleading

Calling it gradual is misleading. The motion of the soil in solifluction can actually be comparably rapid. As fast as flowing lava in fact. As shown in BCC coverage of it occurring in China today: BBC coverage of Solifluction in China 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. But.. the video seem to represent a mudflow rather than solifluction. Perhaps the detachment zone was the thawed-frozen ground boundary but that does not make it solifluction, unless you mean solifluction sensu Andersson. The video is amazing and should be linked from mudflow or any other relevant page in Wikipedia. Lappspira (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Report after report calls it Solifluction, and no where was it actually "muddy". 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless these reports (any links?) are of scientific nature there is no reason to rely on what they call it. Because the issue is tricky ordinary journalist and even some geologists from some other fields might use terminology incorrectly. Lappspira (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)