Talk:Folk classification

Removed "alternatives"

I removed the following from the section on Folk Sandstone Classification: "The primary alternative to the Folk classification scheme for sandstone classification uses the Gazzi-Dickinson method and QFL diagrams. The main difference is the classification of fine-grained components within sandstones. Sand-sized parts of rock fragments are considered separately in the Gazzi-Dickinson method, whereas they are always rock fragments in the Folk scheme. For example, consider a sand rich in grus, or a granitic sand. Point counting with these two methods would have drastically different results. A Folk-style count would be rich in rock fragments, when a Gazzi-Dickinson point count would show the sand rich in quartz and feldspar."

There are tens of alternatives and the Gazzi-Dickinson method is merely one of them. The paragraph does not go well in that section nor in any other part of the article. It is way too long and, in my opinion, adds nothing to the article. Maybe we can put the Gazzi-Dickinson method under a "Related Articles" section. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QFR Diagram Has Wrong Scale

I think the 75 is in the wrong place on the QFR diagram. I have just checked the original Folk publication, and Folk has it in the wrong place! The 75 should be 3/4 of the way up the axis, not half way! Wikipiper (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be fairly common to use only the top half of the QFR diagram (e.g. [1]), presumably as most sandstones plot in the quartz-rich part - the addition of a 50 at the base would be helpful I think. Mikenorton (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in the original publication, the scale along the sides of the main triangle is NOT linear (i.e. the 50% mark is not halfway up). That is why it is the only triangle with labeled scales. This seems pretty straight-forward and I would hate to have it any different than the way Folk published it. We could put a note on the description if you think it's necessary. Thoughts? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense - I originally thought non-linear until I found examples of partial QFR diagrams. A note somewhere in the text explaining that would be helpful in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folk classification. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325125226/http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/folkready/ to http://www.lib.utexas.edu/geo/folkready/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]