Talk:Grand Canyon

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CamdenAl, Ncomar1, Mitchunk13, Kreino1, Tonix223, Dchokr1, Moc504 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jjame67.

Gallery

I had some photos to add but that sent the row of photos too far below the text, so I set most of them into a gallery. The three I left out I thought were pretty good, but maybe we should come to a consensus about which photos to 'feature' (keep full size). Maybe set up a poll - use the photos added so far as candidates and vote for your top 3? Zaui 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for throwing out the gallery (see WP:NOT point 4). We have commons for this purpose. --Dschwen 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

100% agree. All the images stuffed into this already poor article make it look worse than it really is (I can say that since I'm one of the main authors of this article and the person who look several of the photos in it). Much more text is needed and the images need to compliment the text by illustrating places, things and concepts mentioned in the text. Most of the images in this article don't seem to have a logical purpose for being there other than being pretty. That they are so big makes it even worse (I almost always just use the stand thumb width of images even though I have high res screens). --mav 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to the bottom of the page for now. I agree it should be removed, though. // Habj 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in my support for trimming the images--this is way too cluttered at the moment. Robth^Talk 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are simply too many images. The Grand Canyon is a visual thing and should have a few choice photos to accent its article, but this is way overboard. Most importantly, having six on the lead is unacceptable. I also agree with the general poor state of the article, much in contrast to the subject. Maybe this will sound cynical, but perhaps we need a category for Poor Articles to identify articles in this kind of disrepair. The subject is a good one, so the article can be good; nay, it must be good. If no one else wants to clean this up I'll take to the task, starting with the images, this week. I would appreciate any help with the text. Notary137 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't forget, just been working on a template all day. Will try to wade through the gallery on Sunday. If any are appropriate to the context of article sections, I will move them first. Notary137 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Added a couple of <!--comments--> to the article to try and keep more images from coming in. Someone added one Friday. Notary137 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a really good quality one I found: Image:Rim of Grand Canyon.jpg. I think it stands above a lot of the existing images in terms of quality, so I'll let you hombres decide on what to do with it. Black-Velvet 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the images around for relevancy. The lead section now starts with a panorama (I think this is appropriate). All subsequent sections have at most one image each. I've tried to keep it relevant. The Image gallery has been removed. This gallery was a subset of the gallery available in commons. This way Notes, References and the list boxes are finally visible. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge improvement. Thanks! --Dschwen 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a separate gallery page (or pages) for images – with a link (or links) from the Grand Canyon page. Figaro 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Grand Canyon#External links for a link to just that, Commons:Category:Grand Canyon. – Quin 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Canyon carved by the Colorado River

Scientist now affirm that it would be impossible for the Colorado river to have carved this mighty canyon. The amount of water to carve through the rock would not be available. The best "theory" would be the giant lake theory. That the Missoula lake burst through the walls and washed away the dirt and rock. That is still a theory not a fact just as the "Flood" people say this all happened when God flooded the earth is not a fact that can be proven by empirical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:d1e9:2020:45c:7d58:88f:a5b1 (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of newly added climate chart

There are problems with the recently added climate chart, which have caused me to remove it.

• Two references are provided (to different pages of the same website), but the second reference (for location 0088) contradicts the numbers entered into the chart.
• The website actually provides three sets of numbers for the Grand Canyon. The figures greatly vary among the three. I don't see where the website specifies the location for any of the numbers, although I didn't spend much time looking for a key.
• As partially shown by the three sets of numbers, the Grand Canyon's climate varies tremoundously from place to place. A set of figures without a location is of little value, and potentially misleading.

Even if the location were known, in order to have a chart that isn't misleading, we'd need at least three sets of figures: South Rim; North Rim; inner canyon. That would still paint an incomplete picture, but at least would portray the very large differences in different areas (temperature differences of 30 degrees or more; rainfall varying by a factor of three). While I wouldn't object to such a chart, do we really need something that complicated? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

Would like to add a new discovery related to the formation of the Grand Canyon right after "geology" as follows,

Formation

A new theory called the Miocene Glacier attributes the formation of the Grand Canyon to this glaciation 5.6 – 5.33 million years ago as the primary cause. The Miocene Glacier has been theorized to create abyssal rivers (channels), submarine canyons, vast salt formations in the Red Sea, the Mediterrean Sea and Gulf of Mexico and to lead to rise of human race, etc. Dr. John Reed (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Far too early to know if any credence can be given to this theory. Mikenorton (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Mikenorton, far to radical to be included with a just a link to a book on Amazon. The idea is indeed interesting but one has to wonder why has is not been advanced in peer-reviewed geological journals. –Lappspira (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I just Googled the author's name, and found nothing relevant. My politest suggestion is to wait a bit to see what support (or otherwise) arises elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Arithmetic in Plants section

The Plants Section says: "This variety is largely due to the 8,000 foot (2,400 m) elevation change from the Colorado River up to the highest point on the North Rim." But the highest point is Point Imperial at about 8800 feet, while the floor is at 2600 feet. Why is 6200 rounded to 8000?128.187.112.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at this. The full elevation range in the canyon is from the lowest point on the river at the southwestern end of the canyon, which is roughly 300 m, up to Point Imperial at 2683 m, which gives an elevation range of roughly 2,400 m, which is what the cited source says. Mikenorton (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Tramway across the canyon

I understand that a David Rust built a tramway across the Grand Canyon sometime in the 1910s and that Theodore Roosevelt not only rode it several times but even worked the winch that brought the 'cage' from the halfway point to its 'landing.'

How come no mention of this nor how long the tramway was in operation?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You are presumably talking about the aerial tramway used by the Bat Cave mine, where you can find more details. As to whether it is of sufficient importance to add to the main article, I'm honestly not sure. Mikenorton (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Grand canynon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grand canynon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#Grand canynon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Colorado Canyon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Colorado Canyon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 30#Colorado Canyon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Great Colorado Canyon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Great Colorado Canyon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Great Colorado Canyon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Canon of Colorado" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Canon of Colorado. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Canon of Colorado until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

The suggestion that geologic evidence supports the erosional age of western Grand Canyon as being 17 to 20 million years old or older (rather than 5 to 6 my) has been refuted by the abundant and chronologic field evidence described in the article by Young and Crow in the journal, Geosphere (2014, v. 10, no. 4, p. 664-679), titled “Paleocene Grand Canyon incompatible with Tertiary paleography and stratigraphy.” The Paleocene through Miocene age of the dated Cenozoic sedimentary section on the Hualapai Plateau demonstrates that deposition, rather than erosion, was active across the western Plateau (at the location of the modern gorge) through late Miocene or early Pliocene time. Young1940 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

names in Indigenous languages

do the names in Indigenous languages all mean "Grand Canyon"? or are they other words? or names? --142.163.194.149 (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)