Talk:Roxy Ann Peak

Infobox age
The "Age of rock" line in the infobox has two problems:
 * First - the MA in 30–35 MA looks like a subscript. When I delink it in an edit preview, the MA stays on the same line. It seems to be a problem with the infobox coding(?) - perhaps trivial, but annoying.
 * Second - the 30-35 MA is inaccurate. The text (geology section) states the base is 35 to 50 MA and the rock forming the peak is 2 to 5 MA. So - the infobox should reflect that as the age of rock making up the mountain.

Needs fixin'. Vsmith (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Ma was just slightly askew for me, but I think I fixed it. (Let me know if not.) As for the age, I put 30–35 Ma in the infobox because the bulk of the peak is that old; only the small intrusion on the summit is 2 to 5 Ma. I could change it to 2–35 Ma if you would like. Cheers,  Little Mountain  5  04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like nowrap worked - odd?? As for the age bit, seems the "small intrusion" which "forms a relatively erosion-resistant cap" is critical to the existence and shape of the peak. Don't have access to the Lalande ref, seems an unpaged "Report prepared for [the] City of Medford, Department of Parks and Recreation." might be a bit lacking, does it satisfy WP:RS? Is the intrusion a dike or a volcanic plug? How is it geologically related and are there other rocks of that age in the area? Vsmith (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A newspaper article by a retired geology professor describes the entire mountain as an intrusion:

Roxy Ann Peak is an intrusion (a geological "uninvited guest") that punched through older rocks on its way toward the surface. There is no evidence it actually made it to the surface.

How do we know it's an intrusion and not a lava flow? It's younger (30.8 million years old) than rocks around it (42.6 million years old) and, unlike lava flows, is massive, producing no extensive ledges.


 * Here's the link to the article, in the Medford Tribune. The Tribune allows readers a few articles per month for free, then it's subscription only. This article is short and doesn't directly say what kind of intrusion this is. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I did some more digging and found a better, newer source, that thankfully agrees with Finetooth's Mail Tribune article. The summit was K–Ar dated to 30.82 ± 2 Ma during the same year as LaLande's publication, 1983. (Since LaLande's was published in January, this was probably after.) I've adjusted the article accordingly. The TFA blurb should still be fine. It's a shame that I didn't find that earlier (i.e., before the TFA)... When I first came across LaLande's publication, I found all the answers I was looking for and stopped searching for new information, but I should have continued. I do believe, however, that the LaLande publication is reliable; it was well-sourced and written by a reputable local historian. The 2 to 5 Ma age was probably common belief prior to the dating. I didn't find anything to back up the 42.6 million year claim in the news article, unfortunately. I'm not a geology expert (obviously), but if anything else needs clarification, please tell me and I'll attempt to fix it. Sincerely,  Little Mountain  5  20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad that my newspaper find was useful. What you have looks good to me, but I'm also not a geologist. I don't know where the Mail Tribune author got his numbers, but he may have simplified to make the article clear to a newspaper audience. The Bureau of Land Management gives the age of the Payne Cliffs Formation (which runs along the east side of Bear Creek valley around Roxy Ann Peak) as 48 to 35 Ma; the midpoint is 41.5, pretty close to the Mail Tribune 's 42.6. Here's the BLM link. There's a readable overview of Bear Creek valley geologic history on page 10 of this City of Ashland brochure that mentions the Payne Cliffs Formation and dates it to about 40 Ma. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The geologic map I found today says "Upper Eocene", probably indicating between 35 and 40 Ma, while other sources like some of the ones you found have more precise numbers in the 40s, the Ashland brochure says 40 to 50, and several say 35 to 50. I think I'm just going to leave it at 35 to 50 Ma, because all the sources I've encountered at least agree on that. Thanks,  Little Mountain  5  23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia
I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Little Mountain 5 for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roxy Ann Peak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803001135/http://odmp.org/officer/10829-constable-george-j.-prescott to http://www.odmp.org/officer/10829-constable-george-j.-prescott
 * Added tag to http://www.ci.medford.or.us/SIB/files/Prescott%20Park%20Conceptual%20Trail%20Plan%20-%20IMBA%20%20August%202013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)