Misplaced Pages

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

New section

Thanks

For looking at the Post-classical History article. You appear to be an expert on Pre-Colombian South American history. I think this is neglected within the context of the World History field.

Good to meet you! Sunriseshore (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Improving the Stratigraphic knowledge of Early Cretaceous Spain

Hi, I know you are taking a break from contributing at the moment so when you get back: There are many fossiliferous geological formations from the Lower Cretaceous of Spain, almost all are included in Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Europe given your obvious extensive expertise in spanish geology given your work on the Tremp Formation I think you can greatly contribute. Obviously there are many different Basins and Sub basins where these formations are located, and it would probably best if an article was created that discussed these different sequences in relation with each other. Hope you are enjoying your break from wikipedia, Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for writing me @Hemiauchenia:. I unfortunately cannot spend the time I wish to articles, but the subject interests me and I have done fieldwork in the Galve Basin more than half a lifetime ago, so it was digging a bit, but I created this template and added it to the various formations. First step would be to improve those; infobox filling, categorization, adding missing fossil content, etc. I did that and a bit more on the Rupelo, Escucha and Camarillas Formations and created a new article for Upper Bedoulian Formation as an example how to quickly and easily do it. The links to Fossilworks (a great start to build onwards from) are on my sandbox 4 page.

Next would be to add environmental information as I did as far as I could for these articles and mainly in South America, and Tremp of course. But there is already so much maintenance to do, I'd start there. There is enough bibliography linked in the template. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what you make of this stratigraphic proposal given that it strongly conflicts with the sequence presented in the template. I think my next target is to improve the article for the El Castelar Fm. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Great link. Of course they are the leading authority; I just managed to build some coherence in 2 days, but it is still not finished or correct. That's why it is great to work with templates, so the articles get automatically updated. The Cuenca region I don't know myself, I will expand the Urbión Group a bit more, as I have also done some fieldwork there. Cantabria and Cuenca I know only the basics. With separate articles on the basins you can go way more in depth and get the stratigraphies right and update the template then.

What I also found, mainly in my Argentinian struggles with the geologic reports, is that Weishampel et al. is good for some indication, but they have introduced or amplified the importance of some units that are actually local or obsolete names. Hence the importance of finding other good information, ideally in English and ideally CC licensed. Nice, I will follow El Castellar and won't touch it. Cheers. Tisquesusa (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I find editing the template unwieldy, so It's probably best if you do it if you can understand it. The Galve Basin sequence has undergone significant revision recently, with the additon of the Galve Formation (which is already in the template) and the underlying Aguilar del Alfambra Formation between the El Castellar Formation and the Villar del Arzobispo Formation, with a hiatus between the Galve and El Castellar Formations spanning most of the Hauterivian and Valanginian. See these papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I had that paper and planned to add the Aguilar del Alfambra Formation, but in all the hectics of the template I forgot it. This is where I got the Galve Formation from indeed. I agree, the "template" is a nightmare and there should be a good one developed for stratigraphic sections, as this is universally applicable and useful, especially with so much mess lying around (see the Argentinian horrors). Same for the timeline feature, that is ideal for things but restricted now. The evolutionary templates might work for that. In the meantime I added some other old things lying around; Paja Formation and Kupferschiefer especially. They were, as you will agree, far below what they should be. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have created the Castrillo de la Reina Formation article, although there appears to be little recent literature on it aside from fairly brief locality descriptions from paleontology papers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also yes those you've improved those articles massively, to be honest before I didn't realise the Keuper and Kupferschiefer were different units entirely, shows how poor my geological knowledge of central europe is Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Heres a review of the stratigraphy in the Cameros Basin Apparently there are several competing stratigraphic proposals in the western part of the basin. Figure 5 in particular is especially helpful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, sorry about the whole portals debacle. Given how dominant the Spanish stratigraphy is in Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Europe, do you think it is a good idea to place all the articles in a new subcategory like Category:Lower Cretaceous Series of Spain/Iberia?. Thinking about this, most of the Great Oolite Group articles should probably be placed into subcategories as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

More non-exisetnt portals

In this edit, you again added non-existent portals.

You've had explanations, and you have had a block. Please just stop this Tendentious editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)