Talk:Green River Formation

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Green River Formation 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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creationism

Is it really appropriate to add a reference to Creationists' ideas about fossils and Noah's flood? Isn't this a science page? Ginkgo100 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear text

The formation of the intermountain lake environment in the area during the Eocene was a result of the late Cretaceous Sevier orogeny to the west..

Okay, that's crap. What was formed? The sedimentary environment? Heh? Perhaps the intramontane basins are meant? During the Eocene as a result of a Cretaceous orogeny? What is it, Cretaceous or Eocene? Woodwalker (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, that is now addressed. Psuedomorph (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More unclear text

There seems to be some confusion in the intro between the basins, and the lakes. I don't think the intro paragraph is the right area to expand on that. I'll have a go a bit later at sorting it out if there are no objections. Psuedomorph (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil taxons

For clarification I reverted the edit which moved the links from the genera level articles of Icaronycteris index and Onychonycteris finneyi to the species level. Wikiproject Paleontology guidlines are to only create articles down to the genus level due to the often controversial/sketchy/convoluted nature of species level identifications on extinct taxons known only from fossils.--Kevmin (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a general principle it would still be better to link to the redirected title in case you're wrong, or more information becomes available in the future, etc. That would avoid the need to straighten the links at a later date, plus it enables us to determine, based on the link table, which pages discuss individual species and which discuss only the genus. What I'm saying is links of the form [[something general|something specific]] are actively unhelpful. — CharlotteWebb 00:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inthe case of the 2 aforementioned bat taxa, as they are monotypic, WP Paleontology considers it redundant to have a page for both the species and the genus because they would be duplicates of each other. For an example of the opposite of the spectrum see Psittacosaurus. Psittacosaurus is the dinosaur genus with the most named species of which 9-11 are considered valid. Even so Psittacosaurus is the main (and featured) article while all the species are handled in one article Species of Psittacosaurus, where evne the most well know of the species has only one paragraph. If you think that policy should be reviewed then might I suggest starting a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology.--Kevmin (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good thing I redirected it. I'm not asking for redundant articles or a policy change (though one cannot rule out the possibility of these things happening anyway). I'm just saying we should generally link to the most specific term the article refers to. Whether it should be a red-link, a redirect, or a stub saying "this is the only kind of that" is an independent question (though based on what you've said, the redirect would probably be best). — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-up References

There is some confusion in the references. Reference 4 is given at the bottom of the page as "Morton, Glenn R., 2003, Creationist Misuse of the Green River Formation, acessed May 2, 2009." The link actually goes to the UCLA Paleo page on the Green River fossils, which is more relevant to the text covered by Reference 4.

It appears that the text for Reference 4 is a fossilized remnant of a former section on creationist misinterpretation of the deposits and their paleontology. This is supported by the comment in the first section on this talk page, which mentions such a discussion; no such discussion now exists. Unless there is an objection, I will return in a couple of days and change the text in the reference section to reflect the title of the page that it actually links to.--Digthepast (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do make the change and thanks for noticing this! Geology articles here are always in need of a new pair of eyes, Awickert (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Glad to be of assistance.--Digthepast (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I determined that the UCLA page does not contain the relevant info. I restored the link to the Morton article, which does contain it, and also included the publication that Morton references (and quotes) in support of it. The UCLA page is still among the external links--Digthepast (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Shale Production

This section (last two paragraphs in the Oil Shale section) seems like it does not belong in this article. Besides is seeming to have a POV on the entire oil shale issue at large, it is also not referenced. I'd like to delete it but wanted to bring it up for discussion first. In fact the whole section on Oil Shale seems to be bordering on sliding over into a trying to present a position on oil shale, not just expressing the facts about the GRF. Zonedar (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. While in general correct, this is not unique to the Green River Formation and it is described in more precise (and well-sourced) way in oil shale, shale oil extraction and environmental impact of the oil shale industry articles. Therefore I removed it from this article and restored links to the ioil-shale specific articles. I also added one sentence about geology. Beagel (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Green River Formation. 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).

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) 12:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]