Talk:St. Francois Mountains

message: The Photo, this one taken from the wooden walk plank off of Taum Sauk, is not very impresive.  Down the Path there are several outcroppings and clearings that make a more impresive photo and gives a truer sense of the area.  
Also a Photo From the Fort Davidson or closer to the base of Pilot's Knob would make a better photo than the one here.
:This photo is from the Taum Sauk Reservoir viewing platform on Proffit mountain.  Not the most impressive photo, even though it shows the high point in Missouri.  I'm certainly not disamenable to its replacement in this article by a better picture.  Maybe I'll rummage through my collection and see if I have anything likely, though I know I don't have any such as you suggest.  Uploads by others are certainly welcome. (I also want to improve upon that shaded-relief map.) -- Kbh3rd 16:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilot's Knob from base would make a More Impresive Photo

message: The article is getting heavy on facts, which is a good thing, but there are no citations to back them up, which is a bad thing.  Unfortunately, my son leant my copy of Unklesbay & Vineyard to someone who never returned it. --Kbh3rdtalk 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed! 

message: I intend to make yet another map for this article, based on some of the same layers that I used for this one for the Ozark Trail article.  I mean to make further changes to it for that article, as discussed on the , and suggestions relevant to that use are welcome there.  If anyone has suggestions specific to what would make a good map for this article, please leave them here.  E.g.:  Omit towns? Omit counties?  Add Salem Plateau and Mississippi Embayment labels?  Thanks. --Kbh3rdtalk 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Well, I said "see talk page" in an edit summary, so I guess I should put something here.  I was going to question iron in these mountains, but then I remembered Pilot Knob and Iron Mountain, et al.  I guess it was the lead belt that got me confused, but there has definitely been iron production in the SFM area.  I was thinking of Maramec, Sligo, Moselle, and most significantly Pea Ridge, which are all north of this region.  I stand (self-)corrected. --Kbh3rdtalk 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron 

message: So why does the lead sentence use Saint Francois Mountains but the article is called St. Francois Mountains? The official name according to the USGS GNIS is Saint Francois Mountains. The Saint Elias Mountains are not abbreviated in the title. I think this article should be named according to the GNIS. RedWolf (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article back in February I think based on my interpretation of the Wikipedia naming conventions and my observation that the common usage in print is with the abbreviation.  The style guide makes a case for using the title that will match what most people will enter into a search engine -- "Jimmy Carter" vs. "James Earl Carter, Jr.", e.g.  But it's not dogmatic on that point in all cases.  Reviewing the matter just now, I do find a brief paragraph about abbreviations that states, "Exceptions are made for official names and registered trademarks. (Similarly 'Saint' vs 'St.' or 'St' in placenames should depend upon their official usage)."  This is the only thing I've found that specifically mentions "St." vs. "Saint" in names.  I was influenced by the triumph of the abbreviated form for the St. Louis article which, as I recall, was influenced by the abbreviated form appearing on city documents and in the official seal.  I guess you could make a strong case that "Saint" is the official usage here based on its use in the "official" GNIS, which I did not consult.  Mea gravissima culpa.  If you want to move it back to the unabbreviated name, I promise I won't be the one to undo it.  But in order to avoid further flip-flops, maybe more consensus should be generated first?  --Kbh3rdtalk 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come across this problem before and, for what it is worth, I think usage ought to usually follow the so-called "official" GNIS names (Saint instead of St. as well as Mountain instead of Mt. etc) but with exceptions. GNIS seems especially devoted to spelling things out fully whether or not anyone actually does so elsewhere. The St. Louis argument seems reasonable to me. I don't know enough about the St. Francois Mountains to comment on that. But an interesting example comes to mind--Mount St. Helens. GNIS insists the name is "Mount Saint Helens", yet as our page says the name was given by George Vancouver in honor of his friend Alleyne FitzHerbert, 1st Baron St Helens. Apparently the official name of the British peerage is Baron St Helens, not "Baron Saint Helens". So I would argue that the volcano's name is Mount St Helens, despite what GNIS says. I might even say it should not have that period as in Mount St. Helens, but that's getting really pedantic! Anyway, just some thoughts. No opinion on which way it should be in this particular case! Pfly (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some quick research turned up a bit of info about the name, which I just added to the article. Also, since it seems that the spelling St. Francois is far more common than Saint Francois, I changed the lead to start with St. Francois, mentioning Saint Francois parenthetically. Pfly (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the section on the origin of the name.  It seems reasonable given the source.  Concerning the  tag on the fact that it's frequently misspelled — a specific citation saying so might be hard to find.  But when I did a little research to verify the fact, I turned up many instances, including more than one at the USGS.  Perhaps I'll find three notable instances and use inline superscripted html links for the references rather than a footnoted reference.  This begins to smack of original research, but it's a fact that is undeniable after a little looking.  Perhaps I should change the wording from "to match the local pronunciation" to "which matches the usual anglicized pronunciation".  After all, it's not a case of local yokels not knowing how to say "France-whah".  --Kbh3rdtalk 03:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I wondered was whether the "Francis" spelling was in order to better match pronunciation or for some other reason--perhaps due to the river already being spelled that way? Perhaps because Francis is a fairly common name in the US while Francois is not? I mean, I'm sure it is commonly misspelled, but is pronunciation really the reason? It's not a big deal though--feel free to remove the tag if you'd like. It was just something that struck me as I edited. No biggie. Pfly (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Naming 

message: There are some issues with the way formation of mountains is talked about here that probably could use clarification. The date of the current uplift of a mountain range can be different than the actual rocks found within it. This article talks about the Appalachians being ~400 million years old and the rockies being ~180 million years old, however the rocks within the Rockies are the same age or older than the St. Francois rocks,the Appalachian crust is also that old. Thats because pre-existing crust can be uplifted to form mountain ranges. Some mountain building events can intrude new rock into pre-existing rock, the new rock is not the age of the crustal block into which the new magma is being intruded. This can occur in rift zones (extension), volcanic hotspots (yellowstone) and on-continent volcanic arcs (Andes, Mexico). Virtually every square inch of continental crust was once in a mountain range, due to the way that continental crust forms. Mountains are uplifted, than worn away into a flat plain eventually. In the Appallachians, even though mountains ranges have existed there 450 million years ago, they are not the same mountains, many Appallachian eras were eroded flat only to be re-uplifted later on. The re-uplifted mountains are not the same rock that the older mountains were, the new mountains would be rock that were located below the rocks of the older range that was eroded away. 
What this means is that the age of the rock in St. Francois is not necessarily the age of the uplift. I would probably say that the St Francois has been re-uplifted. I have heard that St Francois has long been an area of high relief (whether or not mountains) and some who theorize that the mountains have never had a marine transgression over the past 500 million years (the first sediment recorded marine transgression in MO was 500 million years ago with the formation of the basal sedimentary unit in MO, the Lamotte Sandstone). The absense of a sedimentary layer is not itself a gaurantee there has never been a marine transgression, however previous sedimentary formations may have been eroded away or have been transformed through high grade metamorphosis. Crust under Missouri was, we can be 100% certain once covered with sea early in the crustal formation, as most continental crust is formed as oceanic crust then heavily intruded by island arc subduction related magmatic processes, the primary means by which continental crust is generated from oceanic crust. A land surface would have first appeared on the crustal blocks during the island arc phase, and further during the accretion phase onto the continental margin. As time passes, the mountains are worn away and can become a flat plain and eventually transgressed by the sea where sedimentary layers can be deposited. An area nearby a margin can be reuplifted again due to collisions of new island arcs and continents to the margin. Areas in the interior of a continent can be reuplifted due to hot spot activity, intracrustal pressures transmitted through the crust from faraway tectonic zones, horst graben extension, rifting, as with the Laramide orogeny, direct tectonic effects due to shallow subduction, or may simply be a highland for long periods of time due to being relatively thick and/or light due to isostatic equilibrium, and a combination of these. One theory as to the modern Appalachians is that they have been uplifted due to intracrustal pressures and isostatic balance is due to pressure from the Laramide orogeny transmitted intracrustally. The St. Francois shares some similarities with the Llano uplift, these places may have thicker crust and maybe more felsic crustal content which causes them to stick up farther than other places. There can also be difficulty in distinguishing between an uplift and a simple arch, an arch can be the result of variable subsidence, areas outside of the arch may subside faster under sediment loading , the arch can appear to be an uplift when in fact its not because the areas around it have sunk more. This may due to isostatic qualities of the crust being more favourable due to depression in some areas rather than others. Millueradfa (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mountains Age