Talk:Gneiss

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gneiss article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Geology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Gneiss 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Issue with the second picture

Second picture looks like a migmatite, not gneiss. I think that it's better to remove it. Siim 19:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory statements

     HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Your article says that gneisses do not carry large quantities of micas, then it goes on to say that a gneiss may be classified as biotite gneiss. These two statements are contradictory because biotite is a mica. I suggest deleting the reference to micas.

The article on biotite actually says that it is found in gneisses.

Mica

When shales and mudstones are metamorphosed they turn initially to slates and then to coarse-grained foliated rocks rich in shiny mica called schists, and finally to coarse-banded rocks called gneisses. The Geology of Britain, Peter Toghill.

I think this means that if it is foliated or in 'leaves' like a mica then it's a schist, if it is banded (maybe blocky?) it's a gneiss. I would appreciate comments and clarification here. PeterGrecian 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]