Talk:Geology of the Rocky Mountains

Merge
Just discovered Ancestral Rocky Mountains after I made Geology of the Rocky Mountains. I thought this article title had parallel structure to both Category:Geology of the Rocky Mountains and Geology of the Appalachians. Is merging OK with the other editors? I can imagine a section within this article about the ancestral Rockies. hike395 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not eliminate Ancestral Rocky Mountains, as that is a distinct (and different) entity from the modern Rocky Mountains (for example, though not mentioned in the Ancestral Rocky Mts article, that range actually extended into areas of West Texas that no one would call part of the Rocky Mountains today). However, since the Ancestral Rocky Mountains article is basically a geology article, it would seem to me reasonable to redirect "Ancestral Rocky Mountains" to your page on Geology of the Rocky Mountains, which would then have a section on the Ancestral Rocky Mts.   Since "Ancestral Rocky Mountains" is a real entity (capital 'A') and does not simply mean an early version of the present Rocky Mts., I would feel that it should be findable using its actual name - but that info could easily be on this article you've started (thanks for doing that, by the way).  Eventually, if the Ancestral Rockies info expanded adequately (which is certainly possible) it could be re-created, with a link on the summary section here to a Main Article on the Ancestral Rockies.  Cheers --Geologyguy 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you're proposing keeping Ancestral Rocky Mountains as a redir to this article? I'm fine with that. Feel free to add more information, too! hike395 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my long winded way of saying that. :) Cheers, Geologyguy 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged. Not only is, ..was the life of the Ancestral Rocky Mountains a separate life-(confer Sevier orogeny, etc(I don't know the others)). .. If people, can read and write, any good section can explain all that in synopsis, in this article: "Geology of the Rocky Mountains", and leave, not only somebody else's work alone, but develop that article as it was intended:
 * An article of its own.
 * Sections of other articles to be "expounded" upon; -in reference to it.

It seems obvious the First "Anc. Rocky mtns" was earths first attempt. The final is our present condition. Wouldn't the explanation of the Hot Spot beneath Yellowstone, and 2) the spine ridge-or whatever that W. continental US is riding over be a more interesting history to discuss, instead of just sucking up an article? Into the Rockies, which didn/t just suck up the Ancestral Rockies. They were levelled out through time. Like I say, it was the Earth's second attempt, at the same location, probably for continental, and plate tectonic reasons. (Note: do a total (experimental/abbreviated rewrite of Ancestral, If its still obvious it should be merged, you'll have answered your own question about it.)(+if you just discovered it, then your learning as I am learning. I had to reread some stuff today after creating this new category: Category:Geology of the Rocky Mountains)..(from the Ariz-SonoranDeserts)..... --Mmcannis 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that Ancestral Rockies should be rewritten, but its material should be incorporated into this article. I've done so (you can see what I did by looking at History). Ancestral Rockies is only two paragraphs long: I'm completely subsumed that material into here. I think a redirect is a fine thing to do: if someone later wants to write a long article about it, they can feel free. hike395 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hike395 - the short existing Ancestral Rockies article easily belongs in an eventually comprehensive "Geology of the Rocky Mountains" article, and if/when any section here grows enough, it can and should be split off into a separate article. Cheers Geologyguy 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Colorado Merge
I propose that we merge Geology of Colorado into this article, since that other one is almost entirely about the Geology of the Rocky Mountains. The material about the sedimentary strata (such as the Morrison Formation) would be a positive addition to this article, I think. — hike395 (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Rocky Mountains are only about half of Colorado. If the other parts of Colorado's geology are neglected or missing from the state's geology article, details should be added to the state's geology article. I think that each US state and Canadian province merit their own articles rather than being merged into the Geology of the Rocky Mountains article. Summaries of relevant parts of each state/province geology article could be included in the Geology of the Rocky Mountains article. (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I oppose this motion for the same reasons given by GeoWriter. As said above "The Rocky Mountains are only about half of Colorado." They are not synonymous and there is information about the other geologic regions found within Colorado, which need to be added to this article. Paul H. (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)