Talk:Appalachia (landmass)

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Appalachia (landmass) 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Vermont 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).

Appalachia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned references in Appalachia (Mesozoic)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Appalachia (Mesozoic)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "LoneStarPterosaurs":

From Nyctosaurus: Andres, B.; Myers, T. S. (2013). "Lone Star Pterosaurs". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: 1. doi:10.1017/S1755691013000303.
From Pteranodon: Andres, B.; Myers, T. S. (2013). "Lone Star Pterosaurs". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103 (3–4): 383–398. doi:10.1017/S1755691013000303.
From Azhdarchidae: Andres, B.; Myers, T. S. (2013). "Lone Star Pterosaurs". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103: 1. doi:10.1017/S1755691013000303.
From Pterosaur: Andres, B.; Myers, T. S. (2013). "Lone Star Pterosaurs". Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 103 (3–4): 1. doi:10.1017/S1755691013000303.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ice age destroyed half of Appalachia's dinosaur deposits claim

I have called question on this claim as I've never heard this argument on any scientific papers on the dinosaurs of Appalachia, the claim was intially unreferenced. It appears to be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research policy. The reason that is primarily given for the lack of Appalachian dinosaurs is that there was little sediment input into the eastern half of the western interior seaway due to a largely flat topograpy in comparison to Laramidia, meaning that most coastal sediments were marine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having gained access to the paper, it says that 100-200 metres of cretaceous cover in New-England-Maine have been removed, it doesn't suggest that this makes up half of the deposit, nor does it state the nature of the cover. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The current name seems a bit esoteric for most readers. How about Appalachia (landmass) or Appalachia (Mesozoic landmass) ? FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with landmass, simple and to the point Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do the move, but I somehow don't get the move option? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the move option isn't visible the means the page is move protected, which indeed it is so you will have to make a request to remove it which I'm sure will be accepted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved b uidhe 10:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachia (Mesozoic) → Appalachia (landmass) – Less esoteric, more to the point. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. b uidhe 20:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Landmass" seems more vague and less descriptive to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How? Mesozoic is an era, Appalachia is an area, so it isn't descriptive at all. See also the alternate "Appalachia (Mesozoic landmass)" suggested above, which leaves out any ambiguity. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with "Appalachia (Mesozoic landmass)". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Would be more descriptive of what it is. I don't think the title of all landmasses needs to include the geologic era.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.