Talk:Diabase/Archive 1

==Questions==

Article is too technical. Needs to be reworded for those not having a degree in geology.--Lloydd 06:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? I think most people using wikipedia to look up diabase will be more than averagely aware of rocks. Its not like the Spice Girls will wake up one morning and say "Blimey, me not knowin' rocks I want to see what a Diabase is!", true? Besides which, if we dumbed everything down this would a) be Yahoo!.groups, and b) be useless to geologists who want to actually know things. So why not make a dumbed-down frontispiece to the article and get into the nitty gritty later? Rolinator 05:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Dolerite and Diabase are synonymous, there is one article too many, IMHO.--Berig 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not direct synonyms in all cases. In US English terminology "diabase" is used to refer to moderately coarse basic igneous rocks, however in other areas, usually related to British English, diabase commonly refers to metamorphosed or otherwise altered dolerite. Pyrope 08:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the two pages are merged a redirect should be placed. Diabase seems to be what this rock is more commonly refered to as in the textbooks I've used. Thus if it is merged to dolerite, it would not be unreasonable to expect that someone is going to search for diabase; and it would not be a bad idea to add a redirect diabase->dolerite. Snoop0x7b 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Diabase is the more common term in my experience. Google scholar: Diabase - 8220, Dolerite - 6580. Britannica gives us: Diabase also called Dolerite[1] and a search for dolerite on Britannica gives link to diabase rather than an article. The 1911 ed did define diabase as an altered dolerite, but that doesn't seem to be the common or accepted def now. Given all that I'd go for a merge at diabase with a discussion of the historical/regional usages - and a redirect at dolerite. Vsmith 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer leaving it as is since kids in lower grades dont get confused like i would at first.--66.69.104.246 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged and, as Britannica does, clear the confusion in the very first sentence. A redirect should be added to the page that isn't in use and a small paragraph regarding the variation in usage of the terms describing possible different meanings could be added. In my experience, Diabase is used more frequently, but I wouldn't find a problem with the article being under Dolerite as long as it's clear that both names are used. (24.242.221.231 10:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Diabase is a distinct rock type and should not be merged with dolerite, which as far as I know, is not a common term in the USA.

Dolerite and diabase are both used in USA: I get 11 hits from Google on dolerite and 24 on diabase from the official website of the Geolgical Society of America www.geosociety.org.Babakathy 12:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it will still be better to have one page, since as per Pyrope comment above, US English Diabase = UK English dolerite. A section on the metamorphosed product could then be included, making reference to diabase and to metadolerite. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be required?Babakathy 12:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I didn't use the archaic 1911 varieties from dolerite as they don't seem to be used much currently. Feel free to add if you wish and perhaps more on metamorphically altered or weathered examples/usages. Vsmith 17:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Diabase usage reflects North American bias. I will be redirecting the redirection the other way around eventually. Diabase is a weathered form of dolerite, diabase is used by people who come across diabase, and then extending this to the parent material. This is somewhat comical if you have ever seen Tasmania's dolerite!!! Most dolerite in the world occurs in Tasmania where it is called dolerite never diabase.. Who should win this name game, those who use it incorectly but have the dumbass numbers in terms of crude population, or those who live with it everyday of their lives. If diabase is more commonly used in your part of the world, well, it's up to you to help correct bad, dare I say, debased usage, now isn't it? For now I'll just add to the paragraph on usage while I study how redirection works. --Meika 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus above was for a merge at diabase. If you wish to start the discussion again, fine, but please here rather than on the article page as you did. Also please be civil with your comments, dumbass numbers and debased usage are not phrases designed to find a common ground. I doubt that Most dolerite in the world occurs in Tasmania ... - would need some reference for that. Also please note the Britannica usage mentioned above. Might I suggest that you write a well referenced Wikipedia article on the geology of the Tasmanian dolerites, I would like to learn more about the occurrences there and, assuming that is the way professionals refer to the rock type there, would be in agreement with that as a title. Vsmith 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Further examination of the Tasmanian dolerites -- the referenced book by Leaman (The Rock that Makes Tasmania, Leaman Geophysics, ISBN 0958119902 ) seems to be rather obscure, as the title and isbn do not show up on either Amazon or Barnes and Noble searches or a search on Bookfinder.com. Now I would like more information about the dolerites of Tasmania, but please provide a more accessible source. The widespread dolerite/diabase intrusive associated with the breakup of Gondwana during the Jurassic-Cretaceous in South Africa, Antarctica and Tasmania do need to be discussed in the article. But, please use a more available source and don't argue about usage within the article. Vsmith 04:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on this, but [2] the IUGS does tend to prefer dolerite. Meika did not really put too fine a point on this; for a population of English speakers who say "faucet" I don't necessarily think that just because there's 10x as many US citizens on the net that we should necessarily just go along. Similarly, Britannica is not necessarily the most geologically correct term.

I am particularly unimpressed if the wiki article says that diabase is the preferred term. It is NOT, outside of the USA. I have seen dolerite a lot more in the papers i have read than diabase; perhaps a search of georef for dolerite vs diabase will give a better census of the various usage than google searches which do nothing to contrast the frequency of usage - indeed google will bias toward a US answer because there's more US people linking to familiar US site than non-US people linking to non-US sites.

Ergo, I'm not going to edit this page, but the compromise would be to title the page Dolerite/Diabase (or Diabase/Dolerite) if possible, and knacker the crud viz Britannica being the source of the "preferred" terminology. The debate is far from done if we're relying on Google searhces versus the IUGS!Rolinator (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've considered this for a while now, and have decided that, even though I really don't want to get into this particular debate, it is important for more non-American users be represented here to alleviate some of the bias that has caused the problem. It is obviously hard to claim that dolerite is or isn't in frequent use when the majority of people who happen to post are more used to the term Diabase.

I am Irish, and for the entirety of my education I have used the term Dolerite. I now study dolerites, and so am understandably miffed that when looking for them here I get redirected. The debate of whose in the majority on the internet vs. who may in fact be in the majority in the academic world is not going to be resolved here, so I think Rolinators very diplomatic solution of Diabase/Dolerite or Dolerite/Diabase is the best option here. That way everyone is represented, personal opinions based on their own sphere of being aside. Fossiliferous (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I support the merger but seem to remember more text from before the merge? Did some get lost in the merge? Babakathy 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned just above, I did leave out some of the 1911 varietal terms and discussion. If you feel they are important fell free to include, with modern references please. It's all there in the history of the dolerite page. Vsmith 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

thnks for the nice article but I'm looking for a photo of a sample —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.107.51.195 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 September 2007

For what it's worth, the Field Geologists Manual, Monograph 11 produced by the AusIMM (Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy) lists dolerite as the prefered term for a rock of gabbro/basalt geochemical affinity and medium crystal size (page 201). Diabase is not mentioned at all. This is a well respected publication containing standard guidelines used by both exploration and mining geologist throughout Australia. For this reason I think the redirection to diabase represents a severe North american bias. 210.8.150.249 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that from a UK perspective. As far as I can see (subscription required for the full article) the ref cited for "in current geologic usage diabase is preferred." says nothing of the sort, indeed it says "In British usage, such altered rock (which we must infer means altered from what Americans would call diabase but Brits would not - namely dolerite) is called diabase", ie in British (probably more accurately non-US) usage diabase and dolerite are NOT synonymous. Pterre (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)