Talk:Borden Formation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:44, 15 October 2024

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Kentucky / West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Low-importance).
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

Proposed merge of New Providence Shale into Borden Formation

Current article duplicates content found the Borden. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per previous dicussion at the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black River Formation @Paul H.:, @Choess:, @Jwtmsqeh: Can you please take a look at this and give your considered opinion if possible. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The support reasons for merging BRF to BRG does not apply here, different scenarios. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added Edwardsville Formation to this merge discussion as it can also be merged into this article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a note at Talk:Spickert Knob Formation asking if the discussion can be added to here as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To do any mergers, a person will need to change the Borden Formation into the Borden Group because the Borden Group as currently defined includes three formations: the New Providence Shale, the Spickert Knob Formation, and the Edwardsville Formation. Formations are subdivisions of a group, not subdivisions of another formation. Regardless what is decided, Borden Formation needs to be changed into the Borden Group as recognized by the Indiana Geological and Water Survey Paul H. (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do once this discussion is done. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Spickert Knob Formation into Borden Formation

Moved from Talk:Spickert Knob Formation

Duplicates content found in source article. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per previous dicussion at the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black River Formation @Paul H.:, @Choess:, @Jwtmsqeh: Can you please take a look at this and give your considered opinion if possible. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The support for merging BRF to BRG does not apply here, different scenarios. Fixed merge proposalLavalizard101 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the sake of not duplicating discussions can this discussion take place at Talk:Borden Formation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavalizard101 (talk • contribs)

Done Викидим (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name is well-established, the formation is well-known even among amateurs (I have added a popular article that mentions the formation multiple times). However, the good descriptions, except by the geologists who identified this formation, seem hard to come by. In other words, a WP:good article can be hard to create even by User:Somebody "Notme" Else. Creation of a Borden Group therefore might make sense. --Викидим (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :The support for merging BRF to BRG does not apply here, different scenarios. Fixed merge proposal[[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]])  19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
 ::Also for the sake of not duplicating discussions can this discussion take place at [[Talk:Borden Formation]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lavalizard101|contribs]]) </small> {{done}} [[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
-* '''Comment''' The name is well-established, the formation is well-known even among amateurs (I have added a popular article that mentions the formation multiple times). However, the good descriptions, except by the geologists who identified this formation, seem hard to come by. In other words, a [[WP:good article]] can be hard to create even by [[User:Somebody "Notme" Else]]. Creation of a [[Borden Group]] therefore might make sense. --[[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
+* '''Comment''' The name is well-established, the formation is well-known even among amateurs (I have added a popular article that mentions the formation multiple times). However, the good descriptions, except by the geologists who identified this formation, seem hard to come by. In other words, a [[WP:good article]] can be hard to create even by [[Wikipedia:User Somebody "Notme" Else|User:Somebody "Notme" Else]]. Creation of a [[Borden Group]] therefore might make sense. --[[User:Викидим|Викидим]] ([[User talk:Викидим|talk]]) 21:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)