![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Geologic provinces section cries out for a map illustrating the boundaries of the provinces. -- JohnRDaily 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any feelings about moving to Geology of North America instead? - Ravedave ( talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that there are lots of ways to slice & dice things. It's a shame that neither of these maps seems to match the text in the section on the physiographic regions of the United States. Is there a reason that the text could not be manipulated to somewhat reflect these? I created them with GIS data from the USGS. The full metadata for the data set is linked to from the images' description pages, and that information includes the full pedigree of the data presented in these maps. If that just doesn't match current thinking, I'd be happy to create a new one given the data, preferably as a shapefile, though a bitmip image begging to be recreated as an vector image might work in a pinch.
BTW, I'd be more than happy to redo this if I could find a dataset that covered the whole of North America. The most prolific source of public domain geographic & geologic data and information for the continent is the USGS, and they understandably specialize in the 50 States. Canadian & Mexican data are somewhat harder to come by, while those governments retain copyright on most of what can be found. -- Kbh3rd talk 01:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty rare that political divisions lie along lines that would make sense from a geological perspective (aside, I suppose, from boundaries that are oceans.) I don't think we should be pursuing more articles about geology by state; regions (such as "Pacific Northwest", "Rocky Mountains", etc.) make more sense. I've reverted some recent template additions to a number of related articles. - Pete ( talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved those here because they seem overspecific for this article. Some probably can be reworked into the a text section. Others might be better suited in other articles. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Yes, the Hispanophones are dead wrong that "English: America" doesn't mean the USA, but this article is also dead wrong that "North America" does. I see above that this actually is a "Geology of the United States" article that was nonsensically renamed. It doesn't need to go back, but it does need to have all the inappropriate US-specific maps and state-level links removed. Those need to go to a (I suppose, new?) "Geology of the United States" article.
The entire approach is wrong-headed. Yes, geological features are noncontiguous with most political boundaries. But people care more about their countries or regions (in all their diversity or odd boundaries) than whatever particular feature they happen to be on top of at the moment. Without summary pages, they wouldn't even know where to begin looking. The alternative is to cram all country-specific geological information into sections of the specific state and national pages, but those sections should just be overviews and not full treatments. And in any case, US-specific maps don't belong on this one. - LlywelynII ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Geologic provinces section cries out for a map illustrating the boundaries of the provinces. -- JohnRDaily 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any feelings about moving to Geology of North America instead? - Ravedave ( talk) 21:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that there are lots of ways to slice & dice things. It's a shame that neither of these maps seems to match the text in the section on the physiographic regions of the United States. Is there a reason that the text could not be manipulated to somewhat reflect these? I created them with GIS data from the USGS. The full metadata for the data set is linked to from the images' description pages, and that information includes the full pedigree of the data presented in these maps. If that just doesn't match current thinking, I'd be happy to create a new one given the data, preferably as a shapefile, though a bitmip image begging to be recreated as an vector image might work in a pinch.
BTW, I'd be more than happy to redo this if I could find a dataset that covered the whole of North America. The most prolific source of public domain geographic & geologic data and information for the continent is the USGS, and they understandably specialize in the 50 States. Canadian & Mexican data are somewhat harder to come by, while those governments retain copyright on most of what can be found. -- Kbh3rd talk 01:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty rare that political divisions lie along lines that would make sense from a geological perspective (aside, I suppose, from boundaries that are oceans.) I don't think we should be pursuing more articles about geology by state; regions (such as "Pacific Northwest", "Rocky Mountains", etc.) make more sense. I've reverted some recent template additions to a number of related articles. - Pete ( talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved those here because they seem overspecific for this article. Some probably can be reworked into the a text section. Others might be better suited in other articles. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Yes, the Hispanophones are dead wrong that "English: America" doesn't mean the USA, but this article is also dead wrong that "North America" does. I see above that this actually is a "Geology of the United States" article that was nonsensically renamed. It doesn't need to go back, but it does need to have all the inappropriate US-specific maps and state-level links removed. Those need to go to a (I suppose, new?) "Geology of the United States" article.
The entire approach is wrong-headed. Yes, geological features are noncontiguous with most political boundaries. But people care more about their countries or regions (in all their diversity or odd boundaries) than whatever particular feature they happen to be on top of at the moment. Without summary pages, they wouldn't even know where to begin looking. The alternative is to cram all country-specific geological information into sections of the specific state and national pages, but those sections should just be overviews and not full treatments. And in any case, US-specific maps don't belong on this one. - LlywelynII ( talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)