Talk:Chert

Need references for the Precambrian fossil section and esp. the validity question. Vsmith 15:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Refs added for PC fossils. Removed the qulaification below pending ref. support.

However, recent studies question the validity of most Precambrian fossils in chert and suggest that some of those fossils may be contaminants, fluid inclusions, or carbon threads formed abiologically.

With references it can be reinserted without the recent studies and some... Vsmith 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcedony vs chert

I've always used chert to describe a sedimentary rock, and chalcedony for alteration/hydrothermal/obvious later replacement products. After all, you can't see microstructural differences in the field.203.129.47.212 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

formation processes

Is anything known or theorised about the formation processes of the different types of chert ? Rod57 (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jaspers vs jaspers

Hello Professor Wilson44691, why can i not make a 'link' to the Jasper article in wikipedia about Jaspers by putting jaspers? Georgesgoossens (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't understand your question. Sorry. In which article are you trying to link to jasper? It works in your question above.Wilson44691 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , thanks for the reply. Please look in the history of this subject(CHERT). You will notice a revert after my 'small change'. This change wass the link to jaspers and radiolites. Probably I am mistaken about the author of this revert. Is it Tetraedycal that reverted this change? Regards. I will now change the page again. See what happens ... 188.5.234.63 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology needs clarification

The Terminology section (bravely) tackles the various meanings of "chert", "flint", etc. It needs to be more clinical and categorical. Also it needs to include definitions from standard dictionaries, and not rely solely on specialist sources. The two references provided are from specialist archeology journals.

I came to find out the difference between chert and flint, and I still don't know.

I came to Wiki after looking at this article [1], assuming that Wiki would be more concise, but I found the opposite, and also that the two appeared to contradict.

What's needed is very clear distinctions between general usage, and each of the specialist usages. ("Archeologists call it blah-blah, geologists call it blah-blah, builders call it blah-blah, gunsmiths call it blah-blah, etc.) And the whole reason I got here was the word's use in the "Gold Diggers" TV show. I assume the definition was a geologist's, but I still don't know. Leptus Froggi (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of novaculite as whetstones

The article mentions novaculite but fails to list it in the "Varieties" section, and makes no mention of its important use for whetstones. I'd like to see that remedied by somebody who knows the subject better than I. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize tag

I'm not a huge fan of the globalize template, but in this case I've added the Globalize/US tag, because all the occurrences and all but one of the images are from the US and the terminology section is mainly from a US perspective. Anyone visiting this page at the moment would be surprised to learn that this rock type has a truly world-wide occurrence. I'm a bit busy on some other articles at the moment, but I will do something here eventually if no-one beats me to it. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this a science topic, I fail to see how the template applies. Rocks are rocks and chert is chert. Also, as WP is English language based, the references are going to come from English language sources. Removing template. – S. Rich (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chert. 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/20050612083155/http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/paleochron/05_e.php to http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/paleochron/05_e.php

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) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chert. 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.

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) 20:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tripolitic chert

Tripolitic chert is missing- Philip A. Rutter (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows what they're talking about (not me!) needs to add a section in "varieties", and probably comments elsewhere, on tripolitic chert. With a couple photos. I'm digging (literally) my way into a previously unknown Ordovician reef at the top of the Oneota dolostone. It's highly silicified; and where exposed the chert readily decomposes into what I THINK is "tripolitic".

The petroleum geologists use the word extensively, but actual definitions are hard to come by. It's obviously of vast importance in oil and gas production fields; ergo of general interest.

Look at references in:

Manger, W.L., 2014, February. Tripolitic chert development in the Mississippian lime: New insights from SEM. In Mississippian Lime Play Forum, Oklahoma City, OK, USA (Vol. 20).

Liner, T., 2018. Subsurface Analysis of Mississippian Tripolitic Chert in Northwest Arkansas (Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Arkansas). Paul H. (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]