Talk:Niobrara Formation

Geology Low‑importance

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

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Outcrops only in Kansas?

The article states that the Niobrara Chalk outcrops only in Kansas. The Niobrara formation certainly outcrops in Colorado. Does this article treat only a chalky facies of that formation not present elsewhere? If so, that fact should be clarified. Plazak (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called the Niobrara Chalk, so it probably refers to your specific facies option. I would support renaming the article to the more formal and general Niobrara Formation. Whatever is done you're right about the need for clarification. Abyssal (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't outcrop only in Kansas, not even the chalk facies outcrop only in Kansas. It says this in a couple of other articles that mention the formation, though. What is the convention for geological article names? --KP Botany (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most that I know of are formation level, but I started a lot of those myself. Abyssal (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, just as clueless as I am? I looked at WP:Geology, and I could not find anything on naming conventions. I created the Smoky Hill Chalk article, and debated for a second, Smoky Hill Chalk Member, or Smoky Hill Chalk, and chose the latter since it is sometimes incorrectly called the Smoky Hill Chalk Formation. Probably formation in title is better, and member in case of mine should be article rather than redirect as I used. But, best would be for WP:Geology to have formal naming policy already that we could just follow. Whichever way you want, let me know. --KP Botany (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a consensus to treat this article as embracing the whole Niobrara Formation. Anyone not agree?. Plazak (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Wanna take care of the move? I thought it was that, and added the information about the structural units, so it'd be good. --KP Botany (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Plazak (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, it is probably named after the type locality near Niobrara, Nebraska in northeastern Nebraska. --KP Botany (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Dinosaurs

I know it's the in thing to call birds, dinosaurs, as though that would keep our favorite beasties alive. Not that there isn't good evidence that birds, class Aves, are derived from therapod dinosarus. But referring to dinosaurs as non-avian, which goes without saying, strikes me as a bit of snobbery. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's factually accurate. Abyssal (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a map?

I came to this article fully expecting that there would be a map showing the geographic extent of the formation with resolution to at least the state & province level. I expected to see it in the upper-right corner of the article, as is standard for so many other Wikipedia articles. Can someone please correct this obvious discrepancy? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]