716:). However, I've stopped making new templates temporarily to ask a question: is it okay to create a geological stage template (as in, create a template specifically for stages defined by the ics, which would go on their articles in the upper right-hand corner.)? Also, I'm thinking about removing the table-like templates that were on the epoch and stage pages before I started adding my geological epoch templates or possibly placing them in the 'subdivisions' sections of these articles. (example:
87:
63:
97:
32:
593:
pages and unfortunately needed further adjustment (pointing to "Late
Cretaceous" instead of "Early Cretaceous Series of Europe"). The Cambridge Greensand is no doubt far down on the list of stubs to address, but there has apparently been some discussion about the Albian/Cenomanian boundary, and a paleogeologist could provide a full discussion of the problem.
174:
of the main period to provide a sense of sucession, and to avoid having lots of practically empty pages. There may be a case for some action-packed sub-periods, especially those of the
Tertiary, to have a page to themselves, but in the majority I don't think there'll ever be enough interest or content to make individual articles justifiable. Comments?
251:- themes which are more relevant to the Cambrian article and better covered there. There may, eventually, be cause to create articles on late/middle/early sections of periods, but wanting an article on every faunal stage seems like demanding an article on each chapter of a novel. Further, because stages overlap, I feel that a table like the one in
214:
paleontology and regional geology. It seems to me a waste of time for the reader to give their complete descriptions in the article of the period itself, a mere mentioning of the different systems of subdivision in use/used would be enough there. I agree btw that these articles are often incomplete and not very useful, but
283:
into redirects. But when they would contain information about research history, stratigraphic definitions, rock formations of that specific age, etc. (I feel that's what they should do, since the articles about periods are simply too general for that...) they give the reader some background and would be a worthy addition.
238:
to say anything informative about sub-periods. Evolutionary trends, climate change, and plate tectonics operate, on the whole, on a period-level time scale. My vision is to have a thorough discussion on how things changed through each period, which may even be broken down on a sub-period by sub-period level
299:
I am not totally sure about having huge tables with many subdivions in them in every article about a period/system. When there are ten different systems of subdividing the period they get large so they may ruin the layout and disrupt the text too much(?) All these stratigraphic units are maybe just a
255:
is far more useful than 50 pages consisting of little more than a list of start and end dates and preceding periods, and perhaps a bit of unreferenced, poorly maintained and duplicated material; the table makes it very easy to place each faunal stage in the context of the whole article. I think that
237:
Glad that someone else is expressing interest in this area! I feel that the
Mesozoic periods probably contain enough information to merit remaining as individual articles, although I echo your comments that a full list of taxa is a bad idea. But in the Palaeozoic we simply don't have the resolution
173:
I've been making progress in bringing all articles to use a consistent format, and have been thinking about subperiods. These all have their own page, most of which have practically no information on; it seems to me that it would be better to combine all information about subperiods into the article
592:
This post is occasioned by a change to the stub for "Cambridge
Greensand", which had labeled it "Early Cretaceous". The BGS pronounced it "Cenomanian", making it early Late Cretaceous. My change was to "Middle to Late Cretaceous", a safe enough change, I'd thought, but the stub had links to category
588:
I am not a geologist, but recently have had occasion to make extensive use of data from the major sources of dating information (esp. the
British Geological Survey). Occasionally, I've spotted discrepancies between the date range given in the Knowledge and that available from these sources, and have
282:
I think the ages could eventually all have their own articles, but not because of Earth history. Like you, I see no point in copying information about paleogeography or paleontology to the stages' articles. When these articles only contain information on such subjects, I don't care if they are made
452:
are attended to in differing ways whilst sea level gets a subsection to itself in some and not in others. Life is subdivided differently from one to another - understandable to some degree as there is more to say in certain periods than others as regards marine or terrestrial life, fauna or flora.
242:
the article; that way there is context for the information and duplication is minimised. If somebody wants to know what is going on in the
Ordovician they don't want to have to trawl through a dozen overlapping subperiod pages. The Tommotian was one of the better articles, I'll grant you, but it
278:
Hi Martin, thanks for your reply. I am glad too, when nobody reacted I thought I was the only one who cared, until I found this period-project. You are right: we don't want to have too many articles that simply give the same information. I agree with you that our main concern should lie with the
213:
Hi, I see you're deleting the content of articles about stages/ages for some time now, redirecting those pages to pages about the period/system. I think these names are encyclopedic enough to have their own articles. If not so much as periods of time, then as units in (often local) stratigraphy,
711:
I noticed a few weeks ago that for the eras, eons, and periods, their pages had a template in the upper right-hand corner. the template included a timeline, among other aspects, and made the pages look more official. However, the epochs and ages didn't have such a system, and instead had a grid
287:
contained some (basic) information on
American lithostratigraphy and could have stayed as a stub. So my proposal would be to only keep those articles when they have specialistic information on stratigraphy (weather bio-, litho-, magneto-, or chrono-) or their research history. When they have
419:
I note that there has only been one contribution here in the past 18 months. It's a pity as there would still seem to be a lot of work to do getting the articles on geologic(al) periods into better shape. I am constantly irked by the scrappy nature of the
712:
template that showed all the subdivisions of a given period. I probably should have asked before doing this, but I created and added 'geological epoch' templates to each of the epoch pages, which I though made the pages appear more uniform (example:
680:
The size of the measurement uncertainty does not warrant a presentation with three digits after the decimal point without uncertainty interval. Also, this is only one of several high-precision datings mentioned in the article, another one being
456:
Palaeogeography could do with more attention and a more global perspective taken as regards certain periods - the
Carboniferous has been identified as too Americo-centric though it needs informed editors to redress these imbalances.
471:
What do others think? I note that attempts - at least partially sucessful have been made in the past to improve these articles as a whole and those responsible are to be commended. Is it perhaps time for another push though?
338:
About the table: When a subject is not yet mentioned at all, I filled in "stub". I am not sure what to do with "Events". Certainly not all periods had asteroid impacts, what else could not be covered in the other subjects?
589:
twice made a change in a
Knowledge stub to nudge the entry closer to the current standard. (Both cited the BGS entry.) Because I'm not a geologist, someone in the field should know about these changes.
243:
contained unsourced statements about the palaeogeography which is in fact very poorly constrained throughout the whole
Cambrian, and another unsourced section which attempted to sum up the
307:
periods: because they are less known than their subdivisions, and there is a lot to write about the epochs, I rather feel the focus for the last 65 mya could better be with the epochs:
296:
etc). On the other hand, I see no reason to have articles on the epochs with names like "Late Cretaceous" or "Early Ordovician". They seem to me artificial inventions of the ICS/IUGS.
980:
288:
information on Earth history (paleogeography, paleoclimate, paleontology/evolution, etc) that information can be moved to the periods, maybe except for some obvious things (the
990:
985:
675:
805:
I've been toying with some timeline colors. Some of these letters are hard to read, especially the T. My mobile uses slightly different colors and makes it harder (
390:) which you might wish to discuss. The stub category has been made with a name to agree with the article - if this is incorrect, please propose it for renaming at
468:), serves to break the flow of the article and gives it a messy appearance. They might better be confined to tables except where there is discussion of them.
920:
448:. There are sections on subdivisions, climate, (palaeo)geography and life in each of the periods concerned though beyond that there is less consistency.
596:
A more general question is whether or not the date ranges in stubs should be adjusted to conform to current standards (as set by the BGS, USGS, etc.).
634:) present the dating of the Permian–Triassic boundary as 251.902 Mya. Is that precision reasonable? The Subcommission on Permian Stratigraphy of the
635:
371:(with redirects from botht he US spelling and from palaeo-geo-stub). This is for historical/prehistoric geographical features and locations, e.g.,
975:
970:
694:
1000:
509:
505:
150:
73:
995:
540:
513:
720:)(they might be useful if they were put in the 'subdivisions' sections of these pages). thoughts? Does what I'm saying make sense? by
17:
256:
focussing our attention on improving the period level articles should be our focus for now; sub-periods act as a (vast) distraction.
646:
Seth D. Burgess, Samuel Bowring, and Shu-zhong Shen (April 1, 2014). "High-precision timeline for Earth's most severe extinction".
729:
460:
The listing of subdivisions within the body of the article, especially where there are large numbers of these (as (again) in the
365:
122:
113:
68:
717:
498:
43:
690:
289:
686:
508:. I have added the tag to all of the geological periods, including several that are missing from the table in
521:
387:
361:
Hi all - thought i'd give you the heads-up that a new stub type has been created relevant to this project:
574:
344:
227:
669:
445:
219:
49:
940:
733:
701:
697:, but the latter mentions neither the term "Permian-Triassic boundary" nor the abbreviation "PTB". Â --
607:
578:
552:
525:
484:
409:
348:
273:
231:
194:
955:
936:
725:
480:
340:
223:
819:
599:
535:
But basically the banner got edit and then put back together. Not sure if it is correct, but the
548:
517:
403:
267:
248:
244:
188:
453:
That said some more consistency would improve the quality of this important family of articles.
440:
where, perhaps reasonably given their proximity in time to the present, the emphasis is on the
698:
603:
570:
121:
resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
950:
I've upgraded sections of the Carboniferous to A, but as I wrote these others may disagree!
657:
567:
449:
951:
932:
926:
721:
476:
441:
383:
218:
for example contained good information that is now lost for the reader. Please also see
102:
964:
862:
769:
569:, so the infobox is out of date. Can someone who knows what they are doing fix this.
544:
461:
421:
398:
391:
263:
257:
207:
184:
178:
117:, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
372:
96:
86:
62:
827:
744:
425:
328:
890:
841:
789:
754:
713:
563:
543:
is back as best I can see. But not sure if the markers are correct. Thanks,
465:
429:
92:
897:
794:
661:
627:
376:
316:
308:
293:
215:
382:
BTW, there seems to be a mismatch between the name of the parent article (
222:
on the bad state of the stratigraphic section in this Knowledge. Regards,
883:
876:
855:
848:
834:
784:
779:
764:
759:
749:
631:
623:
536:
437:
433:
332:
324:
304:
252:
909:
869:
799:
774:
619:
320:
118:
707:
Creating a template for the geological stages (as defined by the ICS)
312:
808:
639:
428:
periods there seems to be some measure of consistency through the
335:. If you agree we could add them to the table at the project page.
813:
648:
300:
bit too specialistic to mention in the article about the period.
923:}} could be implemented into any of these colored timelines. (
25:
279:
periods. And man, they are still messy... the task is huge.
823:), then I played around with some templates and did this:
284:
512:. These are now all classified in subcategories of
531:Jurassic page and template of time is correct?
506:WP:WikiProject Geology/Periods#Project banner
8:
981:NA-importance Project-Class Geology articles
674:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
584:Aligning periods with authoritative sources
539:was missing it as it was removed. And the
201:Why are stages/ages not worth own articles?
921:User:JavaRogers/Template:Period font color
109:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Geology/Periods
57:
991:NA-importance Geological periods articles
986:Project-Class Geological periods articles
693:" with a hyphen redirects to the article
42:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
636:International Commission on Stratigraphy
59:
667:
424:article in particular. Looking at the
357:New stub type relevant to this project
7:
541:Template:Jurassic_graphical_timeline
514:Category:Geological periods articles
494:I have added this task force to the
31:
29:
48:It is of interest to the following
919:Do we like this change? The new {{
24:
18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Geology
695:Permian–Triassic extinction event
151:the Geological periods task force
644:. I think this may be based on:
95:
85:
61:
30:
976:NA-importance Geology articles
971:Project-Class Geology articles
702:10:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
558:Cryogenian infobox out of date
510:WP:WikiProject Geology/Periods
1:
485:20:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
379:. Hope it is useful to you.
131:Knowledge:WikiProject Geology
1001:WikiProject Geology articles
958:) 16:43 14 March 2024 (UTC)
718:Template:Quaternary (period)
553:09:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
410:00:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
349:16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
292:can be briefly mentioned at
274:15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
232:12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
134:Template:WikiProject Geology
996:Geological periods articles
1017:
734:18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
526:18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
148:This page is supported by
691:Permian-Triassic boundary
687:Permian–Triassic boundary
608:15:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
579:14:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
290:Messinian Salinity Crisis
195:19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
147:
80:
56:
941:22:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
662:10.1073/pnas.1317692111
388:Category:Paleogeography
566:has been changed, see
812:). I came across the
689:" is a redlink, and "
562:The timescale of the
386:), and its category (
125:for more information.
366:Palaeogeography-stub
683:251.950 ± 0.042 Mya
641:251.902 ± 0.024 Mya
499:WikiProject Geology
415:Re-visiting Periods
220:my earlier comments
114:WikiProject Geology
816:'s color palette (
618:Several articles (
436:though not in the
249:small shelly fauna
245:Cambrian explosion
44:content assessment
913:
904:
614:Dating of the PTB
450:Extinction events
406:
271:
210:
192:
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
1008:
929:for the changes.
914:
911:
905:
899:
893:
886:
879:
872:
865:
858:
851:
844:
837:
830:
684:
679:
673:
665:
656:(9): 3316–3321.
642:
638:uses the dating
503:
497:
404:
370:
364:
261:
205:
182:
139:
138:
137:Geology articles
135:
132:
129:
105:
100:
99:
89:
82:
81:
76:
65:
58:
35:
34:
33:
26:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1005:
961:
960:
948:
927:User:JavaRogers
917:
916:
910:
907:
903:
898:
895:
891:
888:
884:
881:
877:
874:
870:
867:
863:
860:
856:
853:
849:
846:
842:
839:
835:
832:
828:
809:this screenshot
803:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
772:
767:
762:
757:
752:
747:
741:
739:Timeline colors
709:
685:. By the way, "
682:
666:
645:
640:
616:
586:
560:
533:
501:
495:
492:
417:
384:Palaeogeography
368:
362:
359:
206:Copied in from
203:
171:
136:
133:
130:
127:
126:
101:
94:
71:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1014:
1012:
1004:
1003:
998:
993:
988:
983:
978:
973:
963:
962:
947:
944:
908:
901:
896:
889:
882:
875:
868:
861:
854:
847:
840:
833:
826:
825:
798:
793:
788:
783:
778:
773:
768:
763:
758:
753:
748:
743:
742:
740:
737:
708:
705:
615:
612:
585:
582:
559:
556:
532:
529:
491:
490:Project banner
488:
444:or indeed the
416:
413:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
336:
301:
297:
280:
202:
199:
198:
197:
170:
167:
164:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
146:
143:
142:
140:
107:
106:
103:Geology portal
90:
78:
77:
66:
54:
53:
47:
36:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1013:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
987:
984:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
968:
966:
959:
957:
953:
946:Carboniferous
945:
943:
942:
938:
934:
930:
928:
922:
915:
906:
894:
887:
880:
873:
866:
859:
852:
845:
838:
831:
824:
822:
821:
818:Downloadable
815:
811:
810:
801:
796:
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
751:
746:
738:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
706:
704:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
677:
671:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
643:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
613:
611:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
590:
583:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
557:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
530:
528:
527:
523:
519:
518:RockMagnetist
515:
511:
507:
500:
489:
487:
486:
482:
478:
473:
469:
467:
463:
462:Carboniferous
458:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:Carboniferous
414:
412:
411:
408:
407:
400:
395:
393:
389:
385:
380:
378:
374:
367:
356:
350:
346:
342:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
291:
286:
281:
277:
276:
275:
272:
269:
265:
259:
254:
250:
246:
241:
236:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
211:
209:
208:User:Smith609
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
180:
177:
176:
175:
168:
153:
152:
145:
144:
141:
124:
120:
116:
115:
110:
104:
98:
93:
91:
88:
84:
83:
79:
75:
70:
67:
64:
60:
55:
51:
45:
41:
37:
28:
27:
19:
949:
924:
918:
817:
806:
804:
710:
670:cite journal
653:
647:
617:
598:
595:
591:
587:
571:Dudley Miles
561:
534:
504:banner. See
493:
474:
470:
459:
455:
418:
402:
396:
381:
373:Wealden Lake
360:
260:
239:
212:
204:
181:
172:
149:
123:project page
112:
108:
50:WikiProjects
40:project page
39:
464:and in the
426:Phanerozoic
329:Pleistocene
111:is part of
965:Categories
952:Silica Cat
933:JavaRogers
722:Benniboi01
714:Quaternary
564:Cryogenian
477:Geopersona
466:Ordovician
430:Palaeozoic
341:Woodwalker
303:About the
224:Woodwalker
169:Subperiods
628:Paleozoic
377:Zealandia
317:Oligocene
309:Paleocene
294:Messinian
216:Tommotian
730:contribs
632:Mesozoic
624:Triassic
610:Wavery2
545:Marasama
537:Jurassic
438:Cenozoic
434:Mesozoic
399:Grutness
397:Cheers,
333:Holocene
325:Pliocene
305:Cenozoic
285:This one
264:Smith609
253:Cambrian
185:Smith609
699:Lambiam
620:Permian
600:Wavery2
475:cheers
321:Miocene
128:Geology
119:geology
74:Periods
69:Geology
446:series
442:epochs
392:WP:SFD
313:Eocene
258:Martin
240:within
179:Martin
46:scale.
38:This
16:<
956:talk
937:talk
931:) ——
925:See
829:Preęž’
820:here
814:CGMW
807:See
745:Preęž’
726:talk
676:link
649:PNAS
604:talk
575:talk
549:talk
522:talk
481:talk
432:and
405:wha?
345:talk
331:and
268:Talk
247:and
228:talk
189:Talk
658:doi
654:111
401:...
394:.
967::
939:)
795:Pg
732:)
728:•
672:}}
668:{{
652:.
630:,
626:,
622:,
606:)
577:)
551:)
524:)
516:.
502:}}
496:{{
483:)
375:,
369:}}
363:{{
347:)
327:,
323:,
319:,
315:,
311:,
266:–
230:)
187:–
72::
954:(
935:(
912:N
902:G
900:P
892:K
885:J
878:T
871:P
864:C
857:D
850:S
843:O
836:ęž’
800:N
790:K
785:J
780:T
775:P
770:C
765:D
760:S
755:O
750:ęž’
724:(
678:)
664:.
660::
602:(
573:(
547:(
520:(
479:(
343:(
270:)
262:(
226:(
191:)
183:(
154:.
52::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
