Talk:Old Red Sandstone

RFC discussion: November 2014
Odd capitalisation, possibly vague definition. Potentially a proper noun. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Geological formations have "official" proper nouns (eg, Oxfordian, Hettangian, Stage 10 of the Cambrian), that fit into a hierarchical scheme, and recognized synonyms of similar morphology. But there are also numerous older and 'local' names of different morphology, of which this is apparently one. There seems to be a process by which such formations are rendered into synonyms of the official names that is similar to that for species and genera in the taxonomy of life.
 * Thus it seems to be just as much a proper noun as typical taxa and toponyms are. I have formatted, wikilinked, and illustrated it. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See stratigraphy.org to find the International Chronostratigrahic Chart (official names), the GeoWhen Database (official names and others), and the Stratigraphic Guide which defines terms. DCDuring TALK  15:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Old Red Sandstone
Do we want multi-word names of geological assemblages or formations? Are the likes of or  also fair game? I'm not sure, but I wanted to bring the issue up here. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we do. The situation is similar to that with taxonomic names. The International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) is a body that has normative standards for such names. There are sites that have alternative names as well and region-specific databases as well. (See links at ICS site.) DCDuring TALK 00:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We decided we didn't want names of individuals, which could theoretically run into the hundreds of millions, but we're doing names of species, which could theoretically run into the millions. This isn't as bad as either- I would guess we're talking about thousands. The only difference between these and everything in Category:en:Geological periods is the "multi-word" part. If these were SOP, that might be a problem, but they aren't. This one, for instance, doesn't refer to just any old red sandstone, it's a geological term of art. What's more, it's probably translingual (cf. a Google Books search for "ins old red sandstone" or for "le old red sandstone". Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced we should add entries for every species or even genus, no matter how easily the process could be automated.
 * For this case, we would not necessarily be allowing names for every geological feature, but for formations (usually outcropping in multiple locations), time periods, and some singular formations known for their fossils, for oil prospects, etc. Names that have received official recognition are widely accepted and almost guaranteed to be attestable. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also going to comment that these are something like geological periods (Triassic etc.). This one has a pretty self-evident name but I don't feel that it's a pure SoP. Equinox ◑ 01:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Refers to a specific geological formation, so not sum-of-parts. And much more likely to be encountered in geological literature than many other terms.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the community wants such entries to be kept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)