Talk:Wetterstein limestone

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Wetterstein limestone with Wetterstein Formation, continuing also to improve the article. Klbrain (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Oppose merge with Wetterstein Formation. It appears the Wetterstein limestone is a large unit across the Alps in ~3 countries, and the Wetterstein Formation is a distinct component of the unit, only found in Austria. — Look2See1 t a l k → 08:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Seems there be confusion here. The two articles appear to be about the same rocks in the Austrian, German and Swiss Alps. From what I see the articles should be merged. Vsmith (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wetterstein limestone is a type of rock that occurs all over the Alps. The Wetterstein Formation is a stratigraphic unit which contains Wetterstein Limestone and also other rocks. They are not synonymous. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)*
• Support - this article is more complete, but the official name is Wetterstein Formation. Wetterstein limestone is not correct anyway as the Limestone should be capitalized, but it is a historical name. Now there are two articles which are incomplete and poorly described. See here: Nomenklatur DEUTSCH Wetterstein-Formation, ENGLISCH Wetterstein Formation HISTORISCHE VARIANTEN Wettersteinkalk (von Guembel 1861, Fraas 1910), Wettersteinkalk = Ladinische Stufe (Cornelius 1935), Wetterstein = Wettersteindolomit = Wettersteinkomplex (Stöcklin 1949), --- (Fellerer 1964, Kraus 1964), Calcaire de Wetterstein [sic] = Calcaire du Wetterstein = Formation de Wetterstein [sic] (Hirsch 1966), Wettersteindolomit, Wetterstein-Dolomit. Also at Fossilworks the Wetterstein Formation is much more used than the other variants, see here, here, here and here.Tisquesusa (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Fossilworks links also show that @Look2See1:'s (who is permabanned here) claim is false:

• Wetterstein - Triassic - Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia
• Wetterstein Limestone - Upper - Triassic - Austria, Hungary, Slovakia

• Comment. If these are the same thing, Wetterstein Limestone is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME. But I'd like to see a reliable source that contains both names and either explains the difference or confirms they are the same. More research needed I'm afraid. Bermicourt (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vsmith: and myself are geologists. The Swiss stratigraphical institute shows the correct name, where other names using "limestone" (kalk) or "dolomite" (dolomit) are either historical synonyms or subsets of the formation, which makes sense as it is laterally changing from limestone to dolomite. The situation as it is now is ridiculous; the two pages cover the same thing and there are even errors on them. The Austrian stratigraphical institute uses both "Wetterstein-kalk", "Wetterstein-dolomit" and "Wetterstein-kalk/dolomit", which makes things even more confusing. In Hungary, we have 3! links for Wetterstein, with only the general one blue. They prefer Wetterstein Limestone Formation. Limestones and dolomites are clearly part of the formation, with regional variations. There needs to be just 1 article that explains these regional differences and naming conventions and the proper stratigraphy both vertically and laterally with the right lithologies. Wetterstein Limestone, Wetterstein limestone, Wetterstein Dolomite, Wetterstein dolomite and Wetterstein Limestone Formation then need to be redirected to the proper sections of that improved article that explains the various uses in the different areas and what they refer to (part of the formation in vertical sense or regional facies transitions in a lateral sense). The current situation with 2 separate poorly written articles is by definition not right. Oh and you already voted "Oppose", you cannot do that twice. Vsmith didn't vote, but listed his support concern in clear words. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment. Sorry, you're right; that was a while back. Anyway I've changed it. Bermicourt (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This page, that you started is older and more complete, but the name should be Wetterstein Formation and a lot of extra content and references added. It is an important geologic formation spread out over many countries that deserves more attention than how it is now. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

On Wikidata, the German, Czech and Slovenian versions all link to Wetterstein Formation, while Commons uses Wetterstein Limestone, something that needs to be solved too. It's a total mess. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per my comment above (seems rather obvious, but OK I'll add that bold bit now). The formal name is Wetterstein Formation and it is a defined geologic unit that contains limestone, dolomite and other lithologies. Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems from what you're saying that there is a geological unit called the "Wetterstein Limestone, Wetterstein limestone, Wetterstein Dolomite, Wetterstein dolomite and Wetterstein Limestone Formation" and, within that, there are various rock types, one of which is "Wetterstein Limestone". If we agree that, and make it clear, so the two aren't conflated, I'm relaxed about whether it's one article or two. Bermicourt (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. @Bermicourt: I have reapplied the accidentally removed merge tag because of the statement made that the merge discussion hasn't been concluded. I am not knowledgeable about European rock units, so I can not reasonably comment on whether Wetterstein Limestone, Wetterstein limestone, Wetterstein Dolomite, Wetterstein dolomite, Wetterstein Limestone Formation, et al, should be merged to any extent or in any particular way. All I can say from experience in my neck of the woods-less, there is an issue of rock unit classifications not only changing from state to state without facies change, but also the ranks (group/formation/member/bed) changing under the same name even within states (OK, this probably goes without saying to present company). The issue seem conflated by a seeming effort on WP to organize geological unit article along political boundaries, even going to the point sometimes (it seems to me) of mangling unit names to effect state by state articles, even if just (intentionally?) changing the capitalization of the lithology only to create to unique article names. I can't be the first to have commented about this, in general.

IMO, the present edit of Wetterstein Formation should be assessed to which it extent it covers the broad topic of the Wetterstein rock unit classification. Given that, the remainder of the Wetterstein unit articles should have their continued existence defended. Is any usage notable enough to have an article distinct from the main unit article?

I have no certain idea if Tisquesusa is saying that there is a "Wetterstein Limestone" rock type inside other units called Wetterstein, but as you all know, it is common IRL to mangle formation names with the primlith. But, I would add in defense of "Wetterstein <L/l>imestone", while Wetterstein Formation might be more appropriate for the broader rock unit, judging from pictures alone, in the type location, the unit seems to be entirely one member of limestone/dolomite, and if a particular region of the rock unit is indeed notable enough to be recognized under a specific name and is usually treated distinct from the remainder of the rock unit's range, then I could agree to "Wetterstein <L/l>imestone" of some form being a separate narrow topic article.

"Fossilworks"? I'd rather site the European equivalent of Geolex, whatever it is. IveGoneAway (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We have; 2 supports for merge and 1 oppose (and another oppose by a permabanned user). And one of the support-for-mergers (moi) has done actual work to solve the issues, with many references and a section on the naming added. The opposer hasn't done anything and just brutally reverts saying "the discussion [which??] isn't over". And then doing jack shit to solve things, just maintaining an old-fashioned, confusing and outright wrong status quo. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Blowing a fuse, swearing, criticising other editors, merging the articles before the discussion has concluded and boiling a complex issue down to a show of hands is not the way to achieve consensus nor likely to encourage others to see your POV. It is not at all clear that the two articles are about the same topic, simply that the rock may be one of the several components of the formation. Bermicourt (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Are you certain that X limestone is a member of X Formation? Citation? Is that ever the case 8n US classifications? "It is not at all clear that the two articles are about the same topic, simply that the rock may be one of the several components of the formation." If it were a U.S. rock unit, it would be easy for us to tell, redundant rock unit article stubs seems to have been the rule. Like Chase Formation and Chase Group. My money is on the case that these articles are redundant, too, in part because certain editors that made a lot of the redundant US unit pages did much the same with units on other continents. I fix those problems with the contenetal units when I have the time to and so far none of them have complained, in part, probably, because I strongly cite the merges. But for European units I don't have the tools. If one is a member of the other, the you should at least find the stratchart that says so, just as much as Tisquesusa should find a chart that shows the opposite. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:53, 27 February sw2019 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm simply summarising what other editors appear to be saying here. Like you, I don't have access to sources that expressly make the case either way. I'm hoping that other editors here have and are able to cite them. Bermicourt (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: @Tisquesusa: I took a look [www.strati.ch], a seemingly official lexicon. From what I could find, the variants of Wetterstein vary, from incorrect name to informal to obsolete. IMO, there is no justification for more than one article to cover the variants (but in any merger, the variants should be accounted for). Wetterstein Formation should be tagged for inadequate 'inline citations. A significant portion of the present inline citations are Fossilworks, which in themselves do little for the article. IMO, compared to geological surveys, Fossilworks is an incomplete source of informal usage. IveGoneAway (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per contents of both articles. gidonb (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2020 (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.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)