Jump to content

Talk:Alpide belt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Req image

[edit]

-- this desperately needs a map. The article describes a belt stretching from Europe all the way to SE Asia, but the accompanying map only goes as far as Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.203.59 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

the map is also horrendously difficult to read 122.107.8.181 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alpide belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

[edit]

I am going to be improving this a bit now. One issue I want to address is the distinction between Alpine and Alpide in English. Suess was pretty clear about that even in untranslated text (but there is a good English translation). Alpine is specifically the Alpine orogeny. Alpide is any orogeny in the belt. The Himalayas are NOT Alpine, but they are Alpide. However different languages use Alpin- for Alpide and Alpid- for Alpine, notably the German. While I appreciate that our German brothers and sisters have a great language, we are using English here; moreover, Suess was a German speaker and the -ide is his idea.Botteville (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I genuinely have to thank you for clearing the distinction, but second of all, sadly there are repercussions that are neither bad nor good to the change. I want to give for example this article which still has links to the Alpine orogeny which "rejuvenated" the otherwise relatively eroded mountain range. Sadly for everybody the citation is pay-walled and I am not affiliated with any educational institute that allows me to search through it (perhaps somebody else could help with that). Though, I am fairly certain that in the book itself it probably also cites the Alpine orogeny and not the Alpide belt system as a whole due to the fact i saw the exact same mistake in another article which i cant remember. That or i'm sleepy.
My point is, that it will take some digging to "cleanse" wikipedia from the complete confusion of all of this. Furthermore, if it is in fact the case that cited scholarly articles also confuse the two, this debacle will probably persist into non-wikipedia scholarly geology articles. If this is so it will also continue to persist into wikipedia regardless because of (well-meaning) people citing the "alpine orogeny" wikipedia article instead of this one because it literally says it in those scholarly articles. Probably a disclaimer is then needed for people making mountain articles but this is such a niche (yet annoying, and probably quite dangerous) issue that i doubt anyone more will ever care about it.
Sorry if this brings an extra headache to you. Keplerno442 (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]