![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Dakota Sandstone page were merged into Dakota Formation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think that the article at Dakota Sandstone should be merged into this one. It is shorter and less encyclopedic. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I am told by a paleopalynologist that the Dakota is not a single formation, but should rather be termed the Dakota Group. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Great. Once again we have self-taught "experts" screwing up another Wiki-page. Did you guys pay any attention to the original article which CLEARLY stated that the strata on the west side of the Cretaceous seaway (meaning Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) is NOT properly called the Dakota? You can't sneak in the term "Group" to somehow make it work. The term Dakota must be restricted to the east side of the seaway (meaning Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, etc.), with Cloverly used in Wyoming, South Platte and Lytle along the Colorado Front Range, Naturita in western Colorado and Utah. This is how the North American Stratigraphic Code defines a formation: "Article 24.—Formation. The formation is the fundamental unit in lithostratigraphic classification. A formation is a body of rock identified by lithic characteristics and stratigraphic position; it is prevailingly but not necessarily tabular and is mappable at the Earth’s surface or traceable in the subsurface." Hike395 at least comes closer to understanding basic geology.
The screw-up of the Wiki-page now means that the "revised" fauna list now groups animals on opposite sides of the seaway as if they were neighbors.
The trustworthiness of the article is now 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky-man ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The Dinosaur Ridge "Dakota" picture text is wrong. It shows the Lytle Formation (bottom sandstone) overlain by the South Platte Formation. See Karl Waage 1955 Dakota Group in the Northern Front Range Foothills, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 274B: 15-49. 66.111.125.85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to edit the actual page (I don't enjoy working with Wikipedia's UX) but I do work in water resources. The South Dakota Geological Survey Program has a lot of information open to the public if you're willing to search through their archives. This document in particular might help:
Also, the Dakota Aquifer is recharged by the Inyan Kara Aquifer (Lakota Sandstone and Fall River) and older (Carboniferous, mostly) sediments overlain by the Skull Creek shale until more or less east of the Missouri River, and to some extent, the Newcastle sandstone. That's all fairly well described by Schoon (1971) but is contradicted by a source listed on the page, saying the outcrop of what that author thinks is the Dakota Formation is a really small area. The USGS have a more complete analysis of water resources of the Black Hills, including flowrates out of the Madison, Minnelusa and Minnekhata formations. Suffice to say Wang & Herb (2003) should not be cited. The Dakota Formation proper does not outcrop in the Black Hills and the hydrologic budget they have is nonsense. 2001:48F8:1044:F91:8930:3F8:F673:B401 ( talk) 22:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)DustyCymbre
As noted above, there was contention about merging Dakota classifications. Sequentially, the Dakota name applies to, generally, the lowest marine-influenced terrestrial sediments of the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway. The various locations have been corelated biostratigraphically by analysis of pollen, and the units have been physically traced through the range of usage. Breaking things down by state is problematic as the different conventions cross state lines. The primary case in point is Colorado, where each of the three main usages are applied.
I want to attempt here to catalog more recent descriptions of the Dakota classifications for possible future citations.
(More to insert here)
IveGoneAway ( talk) 15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC) IveGoneAway ( talk) 16:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Dakota Sandstone page were merged into Dakota Formation. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I think that the article at Dakota Sandstone should be merged into this one. It is shorter and less encyclopedic. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I am told by a paleopalynologist that the Dakota is not a single formation, but should rather be termed the Dakota Group. -- Bejnar ( talk) 06:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Great. Once again we have self-taught "experts" screwing up another Wiki-page. Did you guys pay any attention to the original article which CLEARLY stated that the strata on the west side of the Cretaceous seaway (meaning Colorado, Utah and Wyoming) is NOT properly called the Dakota? You can't sneak in the term "Group" to somehow make it work. The term Dakota must be restricted to the east side of the seaway (meaning Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, etc.), with Cloverly used in Wyoming, South Platte and Lytle along the Colorado Front Range, Naturita in western Colorado and Utah. This is how the North American Stratigraphic Code defines a formation: "Article 24.—Formation. The formation is the fundamental unit in lithostratigraphic classification. A formation is a body of rock identified by lithic characteristics and stratigraphic position; it is prevailingly but not necessarily tabular and is mappable at the Earth’s surface or traceable in the subsurface." Hike395 at least comes closer to understanding basic geology.
The screw-up of the Wiki-page now means that the "revised" fauna list now groups animals on opposite sides of the seaway as if they were neighbors.
The trustworthiness of the article is now 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky-man ( talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The Dinosaur Ridge "Dakota" picture text is wrong. It shows the Lytle Formation (bottom sandstone) overlain by the South Platte Formation. See Karl Waage 1955 Dakota Group in the Northern Front Range Foothills, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 274B: 15-49. 66.111.125.85 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to edit the actual page (I don't enjoy working with Wikipedia's UX) but I do work in water resources. The South Dakota Geological Survey Program has a lot of information open to the public if you're willing to search through their archives. This document in particular might help:
Also, the Dakota Aquifer is recharged by the Inyan Kara Aquifer (Lakota Sandstone and Fall River) and older (Carboniferous, mostly) sediments overlain by the Skull Creek shale until more or less east of the Missouri River, and to some extent, the Newcastle sandstone. That's all fairly well described by Schoon (1971) but is contradicted by a source listed on the page, saying the outcrop of what that author thinks is the Dakota Formation is a really small area. The USGS have a more complete analysis of water resources of the Black Hills, including flowrates out of the Madison, Minnelusa and Minnekhata formations. Suffice to say Wang & Herb (2003) should not be cited. The Dakota Formation proper does not outcrop in the Black Hills and the hydrologic budget they have is nonsense. 2001:48F8:1044:F91:8930:3F8:F673:B401 ( talk) 22:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)DustyCymbre
As noted above, there was contention about merging Dakota classifications. Sequentially, the Dakota name applies to, generally, the lowest marine-influenced terrestrial sediments of the Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway. The various locations have been corelated biostratigraphically by analysis of pollen, and the units have been physically traced through the range of usage. Breaking things down by state is problematic as the different conventions cross state lines. The primary case in point is Colorado, where each of the three main usages are applied.
I want to attempt here to catalog more recent descriptions of the Dakota classifications for possible future citations.
(More to insert here)
IveGoneAway ( talk) 15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC) IveGoneAway ( talk) 16:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)