Talk:List of geological faults of England 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Having originally established the list as one big sortable table, I've come to realise that it is difficult to edit and indeed cumbersome to navigate around. Moreover I don't think that sortability is a particularly useful attribute with this list. I've therefore changed it into separate alphabetically arranged ordinary wikitables. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You listed the faults in the table by letter not region. An "A" listing in Dorset can therefore be above or below an "A" listing for Cheshire because the entry is based on its first alphabetic letter not its geographical location. Frankly - despite your efforts - this negates any worthwhile comparative study because the named faults are jumbled up and are not by area. Without already knowing all the faults in one given locality, a table sorted by name letter is just a list of geological features. Save going up and down the list from "A" to "Z" to note all the ones in a given county, there is little purpose to this table except it serving as a catalogue of disparate geological entries!
The whole thing needs to be relisted by county, then within each county the faults are listed alphabetically. You don't need to know the name of all the faults in a county because they would be all listed together. That would have been the way I would have approached this article. 86.160.192.137 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name of the page gives it away - it is just what it says it is - a list of geological faults of England. It doesn't purport to be sortable - that would entail it being one unmanageably big table. For myself, I see little point in relisting by county - for a start many of the more significant faults run through more than one county. Feel free to make up a series of pages on the 'faults of county X', 'faults of county y' listed alphabetically if you want though. cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? So now you are just trying to justify the time you have wasted on this meaningless article. You give yourself a persona with the prefix "geo" yet fail to understand it means 'earth' or 'land' i.e. location. All you have created is a giant alphabetical list that is only sorted because of the idiosyncrasies of the Romanesque Alphabetic system e.g. A→B→C→D→E (but it might as well be C→B→D→E→A) and nothing to do due with geography. What good is a list like that? If you actually lived by your moniker you would have created list based on the 48 Ceremonial counties in England, if a fault ran between several it would be listed in all pertinent entry. It would not have become a huge list because each county would contain only those geological faults falling with its borders. Over time they could be cross referenced to show which other counties shared the same features. I am not even a geologist but that would have been the way to go about it, as it stands this article is just a pointless list (like the title says). But then again what contribution does this actually make to the Wikipedia project? Not much because it's just a plain list providing very little usable information (IMO users will know location but they're unlikely to know actual names of geological faults!?). It is arguable in its present form this article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it provides only titles not places.86.168.108.157 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you find it meaningless - sorry that I've led to you wasting your time reading it - of course the beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it - including you! Please go ahead and add the ceremonial counties and improve it! cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, came here to suggest the table be made sortable as per the very useful List of geological folds in Great Britain which I am slowly attempting to fill in, only to find the above. I find the sorting by county in the latter very useful. Incidentally I don't agree that the idea of the table is a waste of time - at the very least it is a useful aide-memoire, admittedly probably of more use within the geology project for populating missing articles. Pterre (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
