Talk:Speleothem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmead2. Peer reviewers: Ctello2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anonymoustrib. Peer reviewers: Asingh757.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Re "Absolute dating": WP:NOR, WP:POV, WP:HOWTO, WP:UNDUE?

Great list of references, but this isn't in the article on absolute dating, it reads like original research and like a how-to toward the end. I'm not qualified to comment on the science, but surely if this is relevant, a sentence or two would suffice?

This is no longer recent research on ESR dating, these facts were established in the late 1980 when it became obvious that ESR dating of calcium carbonate was not a reliable technique as hoped ten years before. There is no problem of point of view here. A rapid search on Google shows that the ESR technique applied to speleothems entered a decline curve. However, quartz was a more successful material than calcite. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ESR was once hoped to have some relevance to speleothem dating but has been completely overwhelmed by other techniques and has pretty much zero relevance to speleothems now. 124.170.26.170 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "Speleothem" and "Calthemite"

After much discussion with several editors, surrounding definitions, possible exception to the rule etc etc, some minor changes to the first section of speleothems have been made in order to try and de-muddy the water in classification between Speleothems and Calthemites. What ever is written can be debated at length and someone will always find a contentious unusual situation, which is not quite covered. Some of the discussion can be found on Langcliffe – User talk page, who raised a number of valid concerns, which I hope are addressed in the minor additions to the "Speleothem" page. This will be followed by a few minor changes on the calthemite page in the next day or so.Newcaves (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The introduction/lede section of an article is supposed to summarise the article, not be a place for explaining detailed distinctions with other things or for detailed definitions of things that are not the subject of the article. Therefore, I suggest that the details of the differences between speleothems and calthemites and also the definition of secondary minerals should be moved from the introduction/lede section to another, new, section further down the article text. GeoWriter (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've chopped the off topic paragraph. Copied here:

Secondary deposits derived from concrete, lime, mortar or calcarious material as found on man-made structures outside the cave environment or in artificial caves (e.g. mines, vehicle and train tunnels), can mimic the shapes and forms of speleothems, but are classed as calthemites. The occurrence of calthemites is often associated with concrete degradation, but could also be linked to leaching of lime, mortar or other calcarious material. Despite similar appearances, "calthemites" (created outside the cave environment) are not considered to be "speleothems" (created inside the cave environment), as per their definitions.

Way too much detail for objects that are not considered to be "speleothems". Vsmith (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

OK point taken - have created a new section at the very end of the page and pasted the couple of sentences in there. It is pertinent that readers have a little extra knowledge and know the basic destination between Speleothems and Calthemites. The few sentences now relocated to new section, provide that basic info and link to other Wiki literature if the reader requires more info.Newcaves (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Intended updates/additions

After review, there are a few things I am looking at updating. There is little information regarding proxy uses and methods, so that is going to be my primary focus. More citations seem appropriate for the types and classifications portion, and the chemistry section lacks citation. I won't be altering the absolute dating section, due to the extensive talks already underway there. Below are a few of the sources I am starting with, and I'm looking more into some of the specific methods regarding topics such as isotope ratios and trace elements.

Fairchild, Ian J., Claire L. Smith, Andy Baker, Lisa Fuller, Christoph Spötl, Dave Mattey, Frank McDermott, and E.I.M.F. “Modification and Preservation of Environmental Signals in Speleothems.” Earth-Science Reviews, ISOtopes in PALaeoenvironmental reconstruction (ISOPAL), 75, no. 1–4 (March 2006): 105–53. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2005.08.003.

Williams, P. W., D. N.T. King, J.-X. Zhao, and K. D. Collerson. “Speleothem Master Chronologies: Combined Holocene 18O and 13C Records from the North Island of New Zealand and Their Palaeoenvironmental Interpretation.” The Holocene 14, no. 2 (February 1, 2004): 194–208. doi:10.1191/0959683604hl676rp.

McDermott, Frank. “Palaeo-Climate Reconstruction from Stable Isotope Variations in Speleothems: A Review.” Quaternary Science Reviews, Isotopes in Quaternary Paleoenvironmental reconstruction, 23, no. 7–8 (April 2004): 901–18. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.06.021.

McDonald, Janece, Russell Drysdale, and David Hill. “The 2002–2003 El Niño Recorded in Australian Cave Drip Waters: Implications for Reconstructing Rainfall Histories Using Stalagmites.” Geophysical Research Letters 31, no. 22 (November 1, 2004): L22202. doi:10.1029/2004GL020859. Jmead2 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review The information in the article all seems to be relevant to the topic of speleothems and any potentially off-topic information has already been dealt with by other users in the talk page. All the sections used a neutral tone and I could not found any grammatical or spelling errors. I did have an issue accessing the source used in the Types and Categories section for the cave crystals. It’s likely that the link just needs to be updated as the main site for the source is still accessible. I agree that the types and categories section would benefit from more citations since right now only the ‘Flowstone’ and ‘Others’ types have any references. I'm not very familiar with speleothems, but the section on climate proxies did seem smaller than the rest so it would benefit from being expanded upon like you plan on doing. Ctello2 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusing

There is something missing here. And/or what? deposited what or how, where

A "secondary" mineral is one which is derived by a physicochemical reaction from a primary mineral in bedrock or detritus and/or deposited because of a unique set of conditions in a cave; i.e., the cave environment has influenced the mineral's deposition.[3]

This is confusing. I will change it to this.

A "secondary" mineral can be: derived by a physicochemical reaction from a primary mineral in the bedrock or detritus, and/or deposited because of a unique set of conditions in a cave; i.e., the cave environment has influenced the mineral's deposition.[3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.53.197.89 (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 

---

Combing the "Origins and Composition" and "Chemistry" sections.

As has been mentioned on this talk page, the "Chemistry" section of the article is lacking. I agree that it could be expanded on, but I also think it could benefit from being combined with the "Origins and Composition." The two sections are very similar in content, so it seems unnecessary to separate them into two sections. Another alternative would be to move the "Chemistry" section to directly follow the "Origins and Composition." This would make the article flow better. Overall, the "Chemistry" section does need to be longer. Anonymoustrib (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing silicate / quartzite spelothems

From German Wikipedia: In silicate rocks such as sandstone and quartzite, speleothems can occur under special conditions that do not consist of carbonate, but of silicates such as opal or quartz. Examples of such formations are particularly common in the caves of the South American tepuis, e.g. in the Muchimuk cave system or in the Cueva Ojos de Cristal of the Roraima tepui. More than a dozen forms of mushroom-, kidney- or ball-shaped formations have been described, also with a coral-like shape and irregular branching[3].

The occurrence of these formations is explained by evaporation of cave water with accumulation of dissolved silica and the precipitation of finely atomized water on walls and ceilings outside the influence of flowing water. The precipitation of opal was also observed on cobwebs, which collapsed due to the settling of the material and formed stalactite-like shapes.

Bacteria play a special role in the formation of opal speleothems, which can be detected in their material

Reference: doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.10.005

--Ernsts (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)