Revision as of 14:14, 22 September 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Volcanoes Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. UK geography High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To add

To add: More on geology/formation, legends

Is it worth adding in more about the Causeway Coast itself - as the Giant's Causeway itself is part of this much larger UNESCO world heritage site the comprises a great deal of the Antrim Coastline. I notice the coast is mentioned in the fact box but not in the article itself. The Causeway Coast contains a number of related geological features such as the Carrick-A-Rede rope-bridge and many historical sites such as Dunluce Castle. Does an article about the Causeway Coast already exist? I cannot find one but maybe I am being blind. It could be argued that the Causeway Coast deserves an article in and of itself separate to the Giant's Causeway, but I would be concerned that such an article would belong in wikitravel as it is a Giant Tourist Trap. Any ideas?

I'll put in a much needed geology section into this article in next few weeks, with a better description of the formation of columnar jointing and an overview of the geological setting in which it was formed etc. etc. etc. Fossiliferous 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Height

Notice: About the height of collumns, 12 metres is not 100 feet, 12 metres is about 40 feet, or, 100 feet is about 30 metres, so one of the values is correct, and the other one should be corrected.

Merge

I've added a proposal to merge Giant's Causeway Legend into this article. Peyna 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

MERGE - It certainly should be. Neither this article nor that is developed enough to justify the two articles, nor is there the potential for the legend article to reach the sort of threshold required for separation. Bastin8 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

MERGE - Should be merged. Simply suggest new Legend sub-section in the Giant's Causeway article. Guliolopez 12:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative There already is information in the Causeway article about the legend but only a mention in the Fionn mac Cumhail article, perheps it should be merged there? SeanMack 13:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Any final thoughts on this? If no final updates, will likely merge the content from the Giant's Causeway Legend article into the existing legend section in this article, add a summary reference to the Fionn mac Cumhail article, and redirect the Giant's Causeway Legend entry to the this (main) Giant's Causeway article... Guliolopez 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MERGE Too many themes beloging together are split up into several article--Hun2 16:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No brainer merge, really. Giant's Causeway Legend is not much more than a stub, and this article could do with expansion. Furthermore with this article expanded you could work the images into the text better and enlarge them. Right now you're wasting your images quite frankly. --kingboyk 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Mal 23:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MERGE This could cause less confusion.

Results of merger

I merged the Legend article into this one, though that has left some repeated information. I might get around to it, but I left a copyedit tag in case anyone else wants to try it in the meantime. I've already done a fair bit of work to it.. and please note that I have copied information from the website directly into the article as a comment, which might help other editors. I will delete this info once I feel all the info has been used - please leave it intact for now. --Mal 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have heard tell that the legend attached to the Giants Causeway is a relatively recent development (ie less than 400 years old) and that it was made up (or widely publicized) to attract the attention of the Romantics and the Victorian naturalists. Is there any reliable information concerning the development, age and origins of the myth? Ammi 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Website info

Setanta747 (talk · contribs) pasted the Giant's Causeway web site into the article as a comment below the main text. I have deleted it, as I deleted it when I copyedited the article a couple of days ago. I included everything from the web site in the article that I thought was appropriate for an encyclopedia. Text like "For centuries countless visitors have marvelled at the majesty and mystery of the Giants Causeway" is wonderful for a promotional web site but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Neither is information on visitor center amenities or driving directions. The article links to the official web site so there is a clear way for people who are interested in visiting to find out more. Also there is the possibilty of copyright problems. In the US, information published by the government is in the public domain, but I don't know if that pertains to the UK, or if the National Trust is considered part of the government for purposes of copyright or considered a private agency. At this point I think that all the site details from the web site that belong in an encyclopedia are there. Thatcher131 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Thatcher - I hadn't considered that you'd gone through it and copyedited appropriate info from it. If that is the case then its usefulness has now ended. As for copyright - the information wasn't published as such, which is specifically why I had added it as a comment. --Mal 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Job on the page.

World Heritage Site

World Heritage site of Ireland?! Ireland is what the Republic calls itself (and is its official name I believe). The Giant's Causeway is in the United Kingdom not Ireland and i've changed the article to reflect this reality. You can't use the word Ireland to refer to something that exists within the United Kingdom because of the words Irish Nationalist connotations.YourPTR! 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. In the context of the template, "Ireland" refers to the island (the geographical entity) rather than the "Republic of Ireland" (the political entity). You may note that there are two templates on the page; one "WH Sites of Ireland", the other "WH Sites in the UK". Both are likely valid in context. To engage in a "what the word 'Ireland' means or is assumed to mean" argument in the context of a natural phenomenon (which existed for 63 million years before the first human thought to give it a name or context) is probably not a good path to go down. (Someone likely reverted your edit for this reason) Guliolopez 16:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that a causeway exists specifically to join two land masses across a stretch of water, couldn't we consider that one end is in Scotland ? We Scots don't market it as much as the Irish, but basalt columns crop up in many places on our west coast and Hebridean islands - Fingal's cave on Staffa, Kilt Rock on Skye, Howmore to Rubha Ardvule on Uist. If I remember correctly, it is locally known as the Giant's Causeway even in Scotland. It may even have been the last link when the islands divided as the sea lowered in prehistoric times ? Maybe maritime charts would confirm or deny that ? Citation needed ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture references / Trivia

The "popular culture references" section here includes some decidely NN inclusions. While there is some discussion about the value of "popculture" references in general, several of the examples listed here are not notable and read like fancruft that is not relevant to the context of the article subject. (A lot of the examples represent "throw away" references in books, backdrops for music videos or interviews, or whatever). Unless - for example - the Causeway was a significant theme in a notable work, it probably isn't notable here. Otherwise it seems dubious under WP:NOT#INFO. I'm going to do some summarising. Beyond that, the section may be worthy or a more complete cull in the longer term. Guliolopez 12:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is getting worse. More fancruft, with severely dubious relevance to the topic, continues to be added. (And - in my view - will be so long as the section exists). Are there any comments on the value of this content? Does it give additional context to the topic for the reader? Personally I think that the fact that someone wrote a (B-Side) song in 2003 named after a 50 million year old formation is irrelevant to the formation itself. Would like to confirm some consensus however before a cull here.... Guliolopez 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The WWE and Scooter references are entirely irrelevant. The Cremaster Cycle article doesn't even mention the Causeway, so it can go as well. The Led Zep and Stone Roses album covers probably have the best case for inclusion, they are certainly of interest - the Stone Roses' debut is arguably my favourite all-time album, but I had no idea the Causeway was the background of the album cover until I read this. They are both notable works, but as you said above they are not sufficiently significant themes in them. So cull the lot I say. Stu 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia revisited

Unless there are other opinions, I'm going to summarise the Trivia section. Again. Since the last review, it has reverted to its long and unwieldy state. (With recently added references to non-notable book covers, throw away refs in Hellboy, the Simpsons, etc). This detail is - in my view - very very weak, of limited encyclopedic value, and represents the type of miscellaneous/random trivia that the relevant guidelines suggest we avoid. As noted before, this formation has been around for millions of years. The fact that it is mentioned fleetingly in a recent feature film, or was on screen for 5 seconds in a Simpsons episode isn't really relevant, and is a "symptom" of the subjects notability, rather than contributing to it. Compare to a "list of films and books the Great Pyramid of Giza is mentioned in" at the foot of that article. It would be ridiculously long and pointless. I may be misreading the guidelines here, so will await any other comments before engaging in some more summarisation (again). Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

History/Geology

I have separated these. However I have one ref. which refers to "slow cooling of the great pool of molten rock,..." I'm nor sure which is correct. Ref. Wilson, H.E.1972. Regional Geology of Northern Irelad Ministry of Commerce Geologiucal Servay of Northern Ireland, Belfast, Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Osborne 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Intrusive or Extrusive

The article seems to say that the origin of the rock is as an intrusive lava.... If it is an intrusive rock, it should be referred to as magma. If extrusive as lava. It is currently geologically incorrect. --86.145.68.88 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Location

where in NI is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on the North East coast in County Antrim. Is mentioned a few times in the article. There is also a coordinates link up the top right. Guliolopez (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hexagonal prisms in nature

The article states, "While contraction in the vertical direction reduced the flow thickness (without fracturing), horizontal contraction could only be accommodated by cracking throughout the flow."

This empoverished explanation is frequently offered wherever polygonal cracks are described, such as in Formation of basalt columns, from the article's External Links section.

The only parsimonious, satisfying scientific explanation of the formation of right hexagonal prisms in nature is Bénard cells (see, for example, Hexagons: Wave Numbers & Defects).

In the case of the Giant's Causeway, it is easy to imagine convection occurring in liquid basalt lava, immediately prior to cooling. The viscosity of the basalt naturally drags adjacent material upward, as the hotter material rises due to buoyancy. This tends to form adjacent columns of alternately rising and falling material. The vertical motion of convection is, of course, the explanation for why fairly accurate right prisms are usually formed, rather than oblique prisms, pyramids, twisted columns, spirals, or other geometries that are sometimes seen in the laboratory.

Imagine a packing of cylindrical convection columns. They would be pushed together (the formation of cylinders would not occur because stable systems alway contract to minimal-energy configurations), deforming the potential right cylinders touching each other at their six tangent points into right hexagonal prisms. Occasionally, defects in the chaotic column selection process would result in some prisms of polygons with other numbers of sides, such as 4 or 5.

This is just what we see in mud flats, the surface of the sun, and many other natural phenomena involving extended, approximately planar convection.

This is my opinion, not published research. Therefore, it cannot be included in the article. Could someone who is familiar with the literature please consider providing citations and integrating the above into the article? Thanks, David (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that ! Was surprised not to see links both ways.

Google only finds 6 items linking "Bénard cells" to "giant's causeway" or "basalt columns". Maybe we're wrong ? Or are Geologists and Physicists just not talking to each other ?

I suggested the shapes might differentiate the mechanism of formation:

Main difference is mud cracking is a surface phenomenon, but Benard cells go all the way through, like lettering in seaside rock ! The cracks have zero width, and tend to curve into part-circles. Mud tends to crack into straight-edged polygons, instead. Tension cracks will fork, and produce different-sized flakes, whereas convection cell boundaries will not have ends, and will form cells of similar sizes. Two other combinations of cell are notable: bisected circles (screw-head) and near-perfect circles surrounded by six or seven others with radial boundaries (flower-petals). Both fit convection better than tension cracking.

Interesting you link Benard Cells to mud cracking ! I had considered that to be an entirely different case. Maybe both mechanisms work together ? Paint cracking on a vertical surface can show a similar hexagonal pattern, but is homogeneous - or do you get horizontal-axis cells due to solvent evaporation instead of convection ?

You can sometimes see them in pans of water or chip-frying oil during heating ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

--thanks--: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.229.146.4 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

55deg 14' 28 N 6 deg 30' 43 W

This being the centre of the Grand Causeway

Current co-ordinates refer to Port na Pleaskin some 2km away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.188.137 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've altered the coordinates accordingly -- not to those given above, but to 55°14′27″N 6°30′42″W which appears to more accurately point to the main causeway (check link). Fattonyni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Geobox/type/nature

I've swapped the UNESCO World Heritage infobox for a {{Geobox}} which incorporates the UNESCO information as a section. I've kept the original infobox (commented out) though, in case anyone takes issue with this edit. Any thoughts? Fattonyni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar structures: bulleted or prose?

After I reverted the most recent change of this I realised there had already been a number of swaps of format prior to my edit -- so I thought I would ask for a consensus: Should the list of similar structures be in bulleted or prose form? State your view below.

• Bulleted - it is far more legible and well-seated in Misplaced Pages's standard formatting. I also find it neater. Fattonyni (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Revise to Prose, summarise, move down as per Guliolopez's idea (below) – This sounds like a good solution -- I agree that not all of the instances need to be mentioned in the list; perhaps just 3-4 of the most notable ones. This would make the prose much more legible and tidy, and avoid it having too much impact on the overall article. Fattonyni (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Prose, summarise, move down - This article is about the Giant's Causeway. Not about sequential fragmentation or quasihexagona columnar structures in general. The advantage of the previous prose was that it was "low impact" to the main intent. This new and extensive list is too long and impactful given the intent of the article. It should be summarised and moved down to sit AFTER everything that deals with the actual subject. I believe it should be prose and deal with a few similar key structures. Not every instance. If it remains a bulleted list, it should be treated as almost like a "see also" section. Which is effectively what it is. Guliolopez (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Prose - I'm not saying the prose version is absolutely fantastic at the moment, but bullet points look amateurish. The prose does need to be altered but it must stay as prose and not as bullet points. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. It seems that there was apparent consensus in the above, so I've gone ahead and restored the prose formatting. I also moved it down below the "features" section. I also went ahead and summarised the list - removing those which didn't have a mention in an article of their own, or significant coverage in a related article. (I did this on the basis that this article ISN'T a "list of basalt column structures around the world". And shouldn't become one.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

'Worth seeing but not worth going to see'

Was it Samuel Johnson who said this about Giant's Causeway. Does that merit a mention on the page somewhere? Martyn Smith (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a country

There seems to be a propensity by some to revert constructive edits relating to the Giants Causeway's location within Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a country just like Scotland, England, Wales and off-course the Republic of Ireland. If you don't believe me check out Misplaced Pages at Northern Ireland and read it for yourself. I'll give you a clue...it's in the first sentence of the first paragraph! States something about it being a country!! --84.93.157.59 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

1. See footnote
2. See footnote
3. See footnote
4. See footnote
5. See footnote

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Top-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Mid-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles
• Mid-importance Ireland articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Start-Class UK geography articles
• High-importance UK geography articles