Talk:Colorado Plateau

Untitled

redirects: Colorado Plateaus Province, Colorado Plateau Province, Colorado Plateaus

Maveric you have done a magnificent job. Glad s/o here knows more about this thatn I do.

User:Pachiaammos May 12

Thanks! The absence of this article was a bit of a glaring omission for a very long time. But you filled that hole and I just followed behind you and added some more. This article is still far from done. --mav 05:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Expansion

FYI - I'm expanding this article offline. I should have the expanded article ready to upload in a week. Any edits made to this article will be incorporated into my offline fork, but please try to put off major edits until after I upload the expanded version. :) --mav 05:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done for now. --mav

GOOD61.205.178.150 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

defining the plateau/consistency

A note about consistency: I'd say that if the plateau is, as traditionally defined, bounded on the east/northeast by the Rockies, then it is a bit incongruous to include San Juan Mtns Wilderness Areas in the protected areas section. They are, after all, part of the Rocky Mountains, and geologically as well as geographically not really part of the plateau. MojaveDesertRat 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Desert Rat says just the beginning of what needs to be said here. I deleted the line calling the La Sal Mts part of the Rockies. The hallmark of Rocky Mts is that they were formed by, to put it in amateurish fashion, orogenic faulting and uplift. The La Sals are volcanic, with some role for salt domes or laccoliths or I don't know what. The Rockies are a huge thousands-miles-long phenomenon, while the La Sals are not part of it. They're their own little formation, related to the Abajos and the Henries, but not even part of them.

I didn't delete it yet but it is also wrong to call the San Juans any part of the Plateau. The Plateau ends where the San Juans start, and what a magnificent meeting of opposites it is. --Moabalan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.223.125 (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rate of Uplift and effect on Climate

Ruddiman and Kutzbach (and others) hypothesize that the uplift of this plateau and the Tibetan Plateau are implicated in the global cooling that started about 40 million years ago. A basic meteorology text (Moran and Morgan's Meteorology: The Atmosphere and the Science of Weather) cites this hypothesis along with the claim that about half of the uplift occurred between 10 and 5 million years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepanzica (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article describes the Colorado Plateau in terms reminiscent of those used for Cratons, e.g. a terrane resistant to deformation which acts as a single block. Is the CP a craton? If so, then this article could be improved by linking the two topics.66.235.38.214 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The following seemingly-mainstream site depicts the CP as an isolated block, of extra-thick crust (>45km):

http://facility.unavco.org/software/idv/display_images/Moho_GOCE_GEMMA_0pt5degree-US-NorAm-map-contour.png

Inexpertly, the CP resembles a craton; and if so, then the article could be improved by observing the same.66.235.38.214 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Anasazi"

While at Mesa Verde about a month ago, I was repeatedly informed that the term "Anasazi" is now considered offensive to the descendants of the Ancestral Puebloan people, almost akin to referring to the Inuit people as "Eskimoes." I changed "Anasazi" to "Ancestral Puebloan People," but it broke the link. Is there any way to make a change en masse that would apply to all mentions of "Anasazi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.243.62.172 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Major image changes

I did some major reorganizing and replacing of images. There was an image overload and many of them were of horrible quality. I replaced them all with high quality images and tried to get a good coverage of the features of the plateau. I know it could be better, so if anyone wants to replace any with something more relevant, feel free. Let's stick with high quality images and limit the number of images. Another gallery could be used instead of massive stacks. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Light on inline citations

I dislike adding maintenance tags, but this article is awfully light on inline citations, particularly in the geologic history section. It should not be that hard to cite a lot of this to some of the excellent references at the foot of the article (e.g. Fillmore). --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)