Talk:Roxy Ann Peak

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roxy Ann Peak article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Roxy Ann Peak is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2014, and on January 14, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 17, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
January 23, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
February 28, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 22, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Mountains High‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects 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.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(←) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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