This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This mis-captioned map of the Missouri River basin (in blue) was added to the page; can it be captioned in such a way as to be made specifically relevant to the Kansas River page? -- Malepheasant 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
RJBurkhart
11:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Also see:
MentorshipART of Peace (
Eco-Futures Forum)
WikkaWiki's logo from the project's
website.
RJBurkhart
02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
USGS TOPO! GPS Data Format Deg NAD83 ElevFeet
JUNCTNCTY,39.02861,-96.83140,1107,JUNCTION CITY :: ELEV 1107 FT
A few notes:
"USGS TOPO! GPS Data Format Deg NAD83 ElevFeet JUNCTNCTY,39.02861,-96.83140,1107,JUNCTION CITY :: ELEV 1107 FT", and found it re-inserted a few hours later. I don't think it should be there but don't want a revert war.
This multi-agency effort focuses on engaging community stakeholders in civic social responsibiltiy for water resources. Hence, biogeography & human geography categories seem appropriate.
(This list follows Kansas River flow downstream)
RJBurkhart
11:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(Recycling prior lessons learned as wisdom)
RJBurkhart
10:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been updating this article and plan to do a lot more. This will be my first series of major updates (to any wiki article). Please tell me how you think its going! Sculptorjones 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This article begins: "The Kansas River ... is the southernmost part of the Missouri River drainage.." Which isn't quite true, as there is the more southernly Osage River, Gasconade River, Meramec River, and other rivers of Missouri. Pfly 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday, I swapped out the Geobox river template on this page for the Infobox river template. User:TimK MSI didn't like that and reverted my edit. Today, I undid his reversion. Tim wants to establish consensus about the change. I'm skeptical that anyone else cares except him and me, but consensus is what makes Wikipedia go round so I'm putting it out to the editor community to decide. (Please note: we are having the same disagreement over the Little Arkansas River article.)
I think the Infobox river template is more concise, logically structured, and aesthetically clearer and simpler. The field labels are more straightforward and logically grouped (e.g. elevation data clustered together), and it contains less redundancy (i.e. no redundant field to enter "river" into when that's already included in the name of the stream). It also adds the Progression field which provides a quick and easy-to-understand way of conveying the relationship of a tributary to its parent streams.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Infoboxes lists both templates and appears to be agnostic as to which one should be used.
Both templates contain fields for mostly the same basic information so, ultimately, I think this boils down to aesthetic preference.
So what do you say, Wikipedia? Which one should be used: the Infobox river template, or the Geobox river template? FUBAR007 ( talk) 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved, bot-summoned editor
Cheers, Drcrazy102 ( talk) 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
At this point, the consensus is pretty clear. Geobox it is! FUBAR007 ( talk) 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kansas River. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kansas River. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Within the Kansas River valley proper, there are no Western Interior Seaway formations. The Western Interior Seaway was a mid- to late- Cretaceous event, and all Kansas River valley formations are Carboniferous and Permian. Only the tributaries get into the Western Interior Seaway formations. The general Dakota Formation is the nearest Western Interior Seaway formation — the upper Big and Little Blues get into residual Dakota hills in the north border counties. Pebbles of Dakota can be found on hilltops around Tuttle Creek Lake (yes, the Dakota pebbles are OR, but you will never find any publication on that), but that is about as close as it gets. Clearly, the Smoky Hill River and Republican River do cut deeply into the undisturbed Western Interior Seaway formation in central and western Kansas. IveGoneAway ( talk) 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
While the glaciation clearly had significant impact on the Kansas River, the impact is not really as stated, and the provided incomplete citation is unverifiable.
If I get the chance, I will try to fix this with work on the glacial Kaw Lake (Kansas).
IveGoneAway ( talk) 22:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
References
By Kansan time erosion had removed much of the Ogallala deposits in the outcrop area of the Carlile Shale (Pl. 1), and the present drainage system was being established.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This mis-captioned map of the Missouri River basin (in blue) was added to the page; can it be captioned in such a way as to be made specifically relevant to the Kansas River page? -- Malepheasant 02:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
RJBurkhart
11:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Also see:
MentorshipART of Peace (
Eco-Futures Forum)
WikkaWiki's logo from the project's
website.
RJBurkhart
02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
USGS TOPO! GPS Data Format Deg NAD83 ElevFeet
JUNCTNCTY,39.02861,-96.83140,1107,JUNCTION CITY :: ELEV 1107 FT
A few notes:
"USGS TOPO! GPS Data Format Deg NAD83 ElevFeet JUNCTNCTY,39.02861,-96.83140,1107,JUNCTION CITY :: ELEV 1107 FT", and found it re-inserted a few hours later. I don't think it should be there but don't want a revert war.
This multi-agency effort focuses on engaging community stakeholders in civic social responsibiltiy for water resources. Hence, biogeography & human geography categories seem appropriate.
(This list follows Kansas River flow downstream)
RJBurkhart
11:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
(Recycling prior lessons learned as wisdom)
RJBurkhart
10:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been updating this article and plan to do a lot more. This will be my first series of major updates (to any wiki article). Please tell me how you think its going! Sculptorjones 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This article begins: "The Kansas River ... is the southernmost part of the Missouri River drainage.." Which isn't quite true, as there is the more southernly Osage River, Gasconade River, Meramec River, and other rivers of Missouri. Pfly 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yesterday, I swapped out the Geobox river template on this page for the Infobox river template. User:TimK MSI didn't like that and reverted my edit. Today, I undid his reversion. Tim wants to establish consensus about the change. I'm skeptical that anyone else cares except him and me, but consensus is what makes Wikipedia go round so I'm putting it out to the editor community to decide. (Please note: we are having the same disagreement over the Little Arkansas River article.)
I think the Infobox river template is more concise, logically structured, and aesthetically clearer and simpler. The field labels are more straightforward and logically grouped (e.g. elevation data clustered together), and it contains less redundancy (i.e. no redundant field to enter "river" into when that's already included in the name of the stream). It also adds the Progression field which provides a quick and easy-to-understand way of conveying the relationship of a tributary to its parent streams.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Infoboxes lists both templates and appears to be agnostic as to which one should be used.
Both templates contain fields for mostly the same basic information so, ultimately, I think this boils down to aesthetic preference.
So what do you say, Wikipedia? Which one should be used: the Infobox river template, or the Geobox river template? FUBAR007 ( talk) 16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved, bot-summoned editor
Cheers, Drcrazy102 ( talk) 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
At this point, the consensus is pretty clear. Geobox it is! FUBAR007 ( talk) 15:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kansas River. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kansas River. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Within the Kansas River valley proper, there are no Western Interior Seaway formations. The Western Interior Seaway was a mid- to late- Cretaceous event, and all Kansas River valley formations are Carboniferous and Permian. Only the tributaries get into the Western Interior Seaway formations. The general Dakota Formation is the nearest Western Interior Seaway formation — the upper Big and Little Blues get into residual Dakota hills in the north border counties. Pebbles of Dakota can be found on hilltops around Tuttle Creek Lake (yes, the Dakota pebbles are OR, but you will never find any publication on that), but that is about as close as it gets. Clearly, the Smoky Hill River and Republican River do cut deeply into the undisturbed Western Interior Seaway formation in central and western Kansas. IveGoneAway ( talk) 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
While the glaciation clearly had significant impact on the Kansas River, the impact is not really as stated, and the provided incomplete citation is unverifiable.
If I get the chance, I will try to fix this with work on the glacial Kaw Lake (Kansas).
IveGoneAway ( talk) 22:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
References
By Kansan time erosion had removed much of the Ogallala deposits in the outcrop area of the Carlile Shale (Pl. 1), and the present drainage system was being established.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)