BeeTea

Hi BeeTea - good to see you stubbing some articles on Canadian geology. A minor heads-up, though: if something's stubbed with a provincial/subnational region geo-stub, it doesn't also need the national one, since it'll be categorised in a subcategory of the national one anyway. In other woirds, if you give something, say {{Nunavut-geo-stub}}, you don't also need a {{Canada-geo-stub}}, since Category:Nunavut geography stubs is a subcategory of Category:Canada geography stubs. It stops us having thousands of stubs loose in higher-level stub categories. Other than that, though, keep up the good work :) Grutness...wha? 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I couldn't believe so many geophysical regions from my high school daze were absent from wikipedia. St Lawrence Lowlands did not even exist yet! But should perhaps these get national stubs only? They cross provincial boundaries and I feel geology is a national topic. I am trying to figure out what should be the name of the grouping article? Perhaps "physiography of Canada"? There is no article yet entitled "geology of Canada" .... BeeTea 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The general rule of thumb for stubsorting is up to about four stub templates. So that's the geology stub plus three others. If a region's only in two or three provinces/territories/states, there's no problem with the regional ones. If it crosses more than that, then just use the national one(s). Hope that helps :) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have responded to your comments on the talk page of this article. There is one area where the piece does need expansion, and that is the attempts of some in Minnesota and the US to use the econonic and transportation ties between the Upper Mississippi valley in the US and the Red River settlements of Canada as a means to obtain the Northwest for the United States. These efforts were motivated by ecomonic considerations, but "justified" by appeals to the "Manifest Destiny" of the US. The present article deals with disputes with Britain and Canada prior to 1850, but does not address these later efforts. I will add a few sentences or a subsection on them.

On another matter: It is good to see another editor with an interest in geology. Wikipedia could use more articles on regional geology, and I hope you can continue to contribute to those as well. Regards, Kablammo 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi again :) I'd suggest bringing the ecoregion category problem up for discussion at two places: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecoregions. Those are the two places most likely to get comments from people involved with category naming and with ecoregion articles. If, after that, renaming is deemed the best move, then that should be done through WP:CFD. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The term isn't mine, I think it was Ernest Mayr that coined it. I've only ever see it used to describe the few rules I have listed and another few rules that describe macroecological trends explained by geography. AS far as I can tell the term is not interchangeable with biogeography, most likely because ecogeographical is more precise. I'll check and report back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Quand je peux aider j'aide. Merci pour ce compliment et si tu veut quelque chose dis le moi.

Pypaertv 62.235.231.148 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Work commitments got in the way over the past few months severely limiting the time I had to work on the routes. I have now been working on some more Scottish Historical Lines in the past week or so, starting from the north and heading south, however work commitments are still proving a hinderance (a secondment to shift working at present). I guess my ultimate target is to work through the remaining historical Scottish lines. Two more remaining north west of Inverness, then heading east to Aberdeen.

As regards the future of the template, the only issue I would have is that any changes are backward compatible. There was a change to icon names in March (or was it early April) when another editor ran a bot to change the icon names. So I would expect two enablers to be in place if a change is to be made:-

1. Backward compatibility is maintained
2. A bot is run to adjust all the implemented templates to the new names.

Several other users from WP:TIS have been working on these routes Dreamer84; Pyrotec and Signalhead. You may also wish to contact them. --Stewart 23:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of some links that have been added to a number of pages, and subsequently removed. As you are a member of the project, you may wish to comment at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Pennine Waterways Links

Mayalld 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for having reverted my edits, I had not realised it was a common template, sorry for the damage! SyG (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Marash Triple Junction. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I pulled the relevant information from the 2023 Turkey Syria earthquake page and from the article about the triple junction at the other end of the same fault line. Not sure what more I can do. I'm not a geologist and I specifically asked other people working on the quake page to improve this one. Every triple junction deserves a page. BeeTea (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An article cannot be in mainspace without sufficient reliable, specific references. That is a core requirement, and trumps just about any other consideration. The page can be expanded while in draft; consider dropping a note at WP:WikiProject Geology if you want to ask interested editors to do so. - If you are basing some of the text on material in another article, then you can also port over relevant references from there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

two refs added. BeeTea (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that should do to start with! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply