Talk:Portland stone

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Portland stone 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dorset Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article ignores another, equally notable 'Portland Stone'[edit]

Check out this story ('Bidding Farewell to a City’s Precious Stone') from the New York Times, which offers a radically different perspective on a 'Portland Stone' which Americans (especially New Yorkers) consider to be no less important than the stone covered in this Wikipedia article, which refrains from even mentioning the Connecticut source of New York's architectural legacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-to-the-face-of-new-yorks-brownstones.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1351191856-FvgQmrtZh9bnHjxumOLmog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.228 (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portland limestone relation to Portland Cement[edit]

What about a quick reference to the relation between Portland Limestone and the naming of the Portland Cement? --Mecanismo 22:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

I should have thought that as a proper name for a material worked from a well-defined geological unit, the term should be 'Portland Stone' rather than 'Portland stone'. Trawling the web, both approaches are seen to be used, often mixed in a single article. The British Geological Survey refers to it as the 'Portland Freestone'. Any comment? Geopersona (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a result of the Wikipedia policy on capitalisation of article titles etc; generally sentence case is preferred, except of course for the initial letter and then for proper nouns etc. (though there are exceptions, such as names of birds, which have resulted in furious debate at the Manual of Style page). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pathe news[edit]

Stumbled onto footage of portland stone being cut in 1955. Not sure if it warrants adding to the external links? EdwardLane (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portland stone/brownstone[edit]

Both Portland England and Portland New England (Connecticut) stone was used in New York City. Thus I added a disambiguation. --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portland stone. 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/20160817194602/http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/building/ to http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/building/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles?[edit]

Currently the article is a slightly uneasy combination of the rock unit and the building stone. The building stone is just one layer within the formation, so we could have two articles, each with a different focus. At the moment the inclusion of fossil fauna list looks a bit strange with all the building stone stuff. Thoughts? Mikenorton (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: I am not vehemently opposed to a split, considering the article gets ~ 130 views a day, the vast majority of which are not interested in geological specifics. The article doesn't represent the stratigraphy or make clear the distinction between the Portland Stone Formation and the specic stratum that is quarried from the formation that is used as "Portland Stone" according to this document there are 3 beds. The Portland Roach, Portland Whitbed and Portland Basebed. We seem to have separate articles for the former, including Portland Admiralty Roach and Portland Bowers Roach that should probably be merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Portland Jordans Roach Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]