Talk:Diabase

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Diabase is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

image?

I noticed that the caption on the image says it's called the Candlestick, but the actual file name implies that it's a formation called The Totem Pole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.99.69 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uses?

Someone mentioned at this afd that diabase is used road construction, but there is no information in this article about human uses for diabase. It would be great if one of you geology-minded editors could add a section on the uses of this rock. Thanks Beeblbrox (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

Recent archiving of 'stale threads' has removed discussion of the Dolerite/Diabase issue. In my opinion this issue is still not resolved satisfactorily, given that "Dolerite" redirects to this page. To non-US readers, to whom dolerite and diabase are not synonyms, this makes no sense. The current wording in this article does not really resolve this. Pterre (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but the most recent remark in the archive is from almost 6 months ago. If you think more debate is called for, maybe a request for comment would be a good way to get some additional input so that a consensus can be found. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that really help? Existing adverse comments from numerous non-US editors (Meika, Rolinator, Fossiliferous, Pyrope, IP 210,8.150.249, me) have been ignored for several months and then deleted. Pterre (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please suggest how you would proceed. Do you want to re-split the article and re-create dolerite as an independent article? Or rewrite this to clarify the difference better? Who ignored the above? What specific article changes were proposed? Last year I did the merge based on a perceived consensus - perhaps too soon. No one owns the article, if you want it changed - either propose it here or be bold and do it. Re-writing to please all will be a chore - you're welcome to give it a go. Or propose changes here and we will discuss and hopefully come to an acceptable compromise. Vsmith (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments were not deleted, they are in the archive, you can just click where it says "/archive1" in the archive box at the top of the page. I suggested an RFC "if you think more debate is called for" (emphasis added), if you don't think it is, I would follow Vsmith's advice. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the 'archive box', which (as an editor of 2 years standing) I had not noticed. By deleted I mean the controversy is no longer visible to the casual visitor, who is probably not going to hunt around - or perhaps even notice - archives. Removal of this while the article remains controversial seems premature. The main bone of contention is with the current US-centric wording of the article, which would be fine if it were not a redirect from dolerite. I will edit the article to address the main perceived problems, though I am not quite sure how to deal with the scattering of 'diabase' and 'dolerite' within the body of the text, given the multiple meanings of diabase. Pterre (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done my worst - Irish and Commonwealth readers might want to expand on my UK-centric perspective. I've added a couple of old refs for (former) uses of Diabase in Britain and Europe. I've not currently got access to any more recent petrology textbooks, but all the more recent British publications on my bookshelf (eg Selwood, Durrance and Bristow 1998, The Geology of Cornwall, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, ISBN 0-859894320) and current British Geological Survey maps) continue to use the term Dolerite. Pterre (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metabasalt

Just shortly to refer to different applications of the word diabas in Europe and especially in older German literature, why not simply state that Diabas might be used there for paläobasalt? In these cases it's Spilit or Pikrit and not Dolerit. It's not subvolcanic than. Ther often are pillows or volcanic bombs. However, as Europeans and Germans love to adjust to the US we enthusiastically stopped using the word diabas for that and try to talk about metabasalt in these cases. 79.225.159.74 (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can a section be added on how the rock is formed?

I get the impression it's from magma being injected into an area and then likely cooled very slowly. That's a guess. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]