Talk:Geology of Chile

Chile Top‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Geology of Chile 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.

New outline

Here I propose a new outline for the article. I think the geological history section can be errased for now, it too incomplete and gives a erroneous view of the events that have shaped the geology of Chile.

Geology (includes general morphology and key events)
- Far north (Peruvian border-Copipó)
- Near north (Copiapó-Aconcagua)
- Central zone (Aconcagua river-Biobío)
- Southern zone (Biobío-Wellington Island)
- Magallanes (Wellington Island-to the south)
- Pacific Islands (Easter I., Sala y Gomez, Juan Fernández I., I. Desventuradas.)

Economic geology
- Mining
- Geothermal energy
- Tourism

Geological hazards
- Earthquakes
- Volcanism
- Massmovements

-Dentren | ^Talk 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I think this is a very good outline. I'm curious though which parts of the geological history are wrong. (I didn't write any of it, but it is interesting.) - Ruodyssey (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that a particular piece of information is wrong but currently the history is too patchy, jumping from one event in one epoch in the north to another event in the south in another epoch. It is like having a history of South America article begining with Incas, the jumping to Cabral's discovery of Brazil, and then to the May Revolution and then to the 19th century economy of Colombia and Venezuela. Dentren | ^Talk 08:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

The article Seismicity of the Chilean coast would be better if it considered all seismicity in the whole country and not only the coasts one, in that sense it would belong better in Geology of Chile until it has grown to be a good article byt its own.Dentren | ^Talk 15:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This could be a good lead-in for the Earthquakes subsection proposed above and/or summary for Earthquakes in Chile. - Ruodyssey (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geology of Chile. 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/20151109062356/http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo527/Andes/tectonicandes.html to http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo5xx/geo527/Andes/tectonicandes.html

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) 22:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]