Talk:Jan Mayen Microcontinent

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Geology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Jan Mayen Microcontinent 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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microcontinent[edit]

Jan Mayen is not a plate now and was only briefly one in the past. It started 'life' as part of the Greenland Plate during the intial break-up of the Atlantic at the start of the Eocene. At this time its southeastern boundary was formed by the Aegir Ridge, its northwestern boundary was yet to form. During the Oligocene the Kolbeinsey Ridge began to propagate northwards from the Reykjanes Ridge, eventually separating Jan Mayen from Greenland at the Oligocene-Miocene boundary. Until spreading stopped along the Aegir Ridge it is likely to have enjoyed a brief period as a true plate, but soon enough it formed part of the Eurasian Plate. Jan Mayen is much better (and more accurately) described as a microcontinent and this page should in my opinion be moved to Jan Mayen (microcontinent). I note that Google Scholar gives just 7 hits for 'Jan Mayen Plate' (most describing its brief career before the Aegir Ridge stopped), but 106 hits for 'Jan Mayen microcontinent'. Mikenorton (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no response, I went ahead and moved the article. Mikenorton (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge[edit]

Scrutton (1976) suggests that the Jan Mayen Ridge is not a microcontinent, but is just a continental fragment. See Scrutton, Roger A. (1976) "Microcontinents and Their Significance" pp. 177–189 In Drake, Charles L. (1976) (editor) Geodynamics: Progress and Prospects American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., ISBN 978-0-87590-203-6. page 178. As "ridge" is less problematic, I think moving this article to Jan Mayen Ridge would be appropriate. Objections? --Bejnar (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sent me checking through both Google Books and Google Scholar and you're right that 'Ridge' is more common than 'Microcontinent' in both cases, but it appears to me that 'Microcontinent' is the more common in more recent sources (from about 1997 or so), suggesting that the usage is changing - no objection though to ~~adding 'Jan Mayen Ridge' as an alternative in the first sentence and~~ adding a redirect from that as people obviously may search on that name. Mikenorton (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the term is already used in the article to describe the largest bathymetric feature (which is what the ridge is), so striking part of my earlier response, although the microcontinent has a larger geographical extent than just the ridge. Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]