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.
Talk:Coconino Sandstone 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
Whoa! I added this last night, without realizing there is all the above commentary on the creationists begging the rocks to be of marine origin: "The eolian nature of the Coconino (particularly in the Grand Canyon) is challenged by creationists. Their a priori conclusion is that the Coconino was deposited in water, rather than by wind, during the Noachian Flood, for to allow that the Coconino is eolian would disprove their flood theory." Based on a new article by Steven Newton: The Coconino's starring role in the creationist-geologist battle. EARTH Magazine [1]. I somewhat agree that maybe creationism shouldn't even be mentioned, but as the article states creationists at Cedarville Univ. in Ohio are now actually trying to use real geologic data like grain size analysis to show that the Coconino is not eolian. They of course ignore the obvious crossbedding and frosted grains that indicate eolian origin. Jstuby (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. If you want it somewhere, put it on some creationism page ... flood geo or something. Doesn't belong here. Vsmith (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case some revisits a Creationism section one day, there were 3 papers presented at the 2009 GSA conference that could be referenced regarding the Coconino Sandstone [2], [3], [4]. --Jonathan Roy (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a couple different types of cites including a bare Html call. I propose putting them all in the same template style.. TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
to P.H. Is they some reason why you didn't use typical cite template that automatically puts the references into a common format? TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried using the "typical cite template," I found it an absurdly inflexible, poorly designed, and quite useless piece of automation that creates more problems than it solves. I have found that simply typing out a citation saves a lot time, effort, and frustration. Because I have limited time to work on editing, I prefer not to waste all of my time trying to force fit citations into this template. Paul H. (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been reading and editing it appears to me that many editors do not know how to properly write a citation. That's why I find that the collection of cite templates (book, web, journal, news, etc.) are really helpful. All you need to do is fill in as many blanks as you have information for, and then the citation is structured properly for each kind of resource automatically. This is very acceptable for most sources. Of course if there is something more difficult, writing it out is best. And too, the harv and sfn templates greatly reduce the clutter in the articles, making them easier to edit for content, grammar, etc.. TheTahoeNatrLuvnYaho (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
