Talk:Geological history of Mars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Solar System / Mars (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mars (marked as High-importance).
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Geological history of Mars 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Not ideal[edit]

This page is pretty misleading. I came here expecting to see a discussion of the Geological History of Mars, not techniques for interpreting it. I would suggest this page is redundant as-is (especially as this exact same material is getting duplicated widely around, e.g., Noachian, Hesperian, Amazonian (Mars), etc.).

I'm already considering a delete request for this page, as it's so off topic. Anyone want to come to it's defense before I actually start the process?DanHobley (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: I guess a rename to something like "Geological dating on Mars" would be more appropriate than an outright delete. DanHobley (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - and at the moment - your rename suggestion (and related updating of article content to the new name) may be worth considering I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)