Talk:Geologic time scale

Geologic time scale (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 18 May 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology Top‑importance Talk:Geologic time scale is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Geologic time scale is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 1, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept January 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 8, 2004 Featured article review Demoted November 10, 2004 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Template:Geologic time scale was copied or moved into Geologic time scale with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was reviewed by The Roanoke Times on July 1, 2005. Comments: Geologist Bob Bodnar of Virginia Tech found "the terminology and ages used [in the article] to be quite accurate and consistent with the most recent data." See the Wikipedia Signpost article. For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of User:Jarred_C_Lloyd/Articles/GeologicTimeScale_Terminology was copied or moved into Geologic time scale with this edit on 2022-06-05. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Look up epoch in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

The article uses the word epoch to mean a span of time less than an era. In chronology, the term specifies a specific moment in time. Using the latter definition, the current favourite proposed epoch for the Anthropocene is 1950; the epoch for the Holocene is "approximately 11,650 cal years before present". Wiktionary gives both senses (though five of the six use the 'moment' meaning). So I expected to find here a source for the 'time span' meaning, but failed to find it. Under #Terminology, we have Eons are divided into eras,^[2] which are in turn divided into periods,^[3] epochs and ages. No citation is given for 'epochs' or 'ages'.

Citation 2 above [Chapter 9 of Stratigraphic Guide] just says a. Definition. The series is a chronostratigraphic unit ranking above a stage and below a system. The geochronologic equivalent of a series is an epoch. I don't have Citation 3 [the AGI Glossary of geology] but it is curious that we have citations for eras and periods, but not for epochs and ages (and don't even mention 'series'. Nor 'stage' nor 'system', for that matter.).

Would someone rectify, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found it surprisingly difficult to find a clear definition - I note that both Epoch (geology) and Age (geology) unhelpfully redirect to this page. I think that this source should cover this, both for "epochs" and "ages", even if it doesn't go into any detail about the latter. Mikenorton (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it would be a good idea to expand the #Terminology section to define and explain all these terms. That really needs some subject expertise that I don't have. I don't think that just whacking in a citation arbitrarily will do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was looking for. It contains everything that we need to write a more comprehensive terminology section as you suggest. I will do my best to get around to doing this, if nobody else gets there first. Mikenorton (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mikenorton I've started work on writing a much more comprehensive terminology Draft: GeologicTimeScale Terminology and am happy to take the lead on this. If you have time and feel like helping out that would be much appreciated and would speed up the process. Given I'm planning a substantial rewrite I thought it would be easier to write a draft first and then replace the current terminology section on this page. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, I keep getting involved in other things. Currently away and with little opportunity to edit, so will hopefully take a look on my return, thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In passing, I was surprised to see this in the ICS item to which you linked @Mikenorton: An eonothem is a chronostratigraphic unit greater than an erathem. The geochronologic equivalent is an eon. Three eonothems are generally recognized, from older to younger, the Archean, Proterozoic and Phanerozoic eonothems. The combined first two are usually referred to as the Precambrian. - it rather ignores the Hadean and equates just the combined Archaean and Proterozoic eon(othem)s with the Precambrian; a definition from an august body at odds with the general understanding of the supereon and indeed with its own published chart. A simple error on the part of ICS? cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be a deliberate omission of the Hadean in that definition by the ICS as they are only talking about the formally defined eonothems/eons. As you point out the general use of pre-Cambrian includes the Hadean (as does their latest chart [although both are still informal as indicated by italics]), but neither are formal chronostratigraphic names/terms. The better definition which I've used in this revision of the article I'm working on, is "Informally, the time before the Cambrian is often referred to as the pre-Cambrian or Precambrian (Supereon)". Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are plainly nuances here - I'm leaving a clearer exposition of all this in your hands. thanks Geopersona (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to change the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary dates (of which there are 3 occurrences) from 541 Ma to 539 Ma in accordance with the recently published ICS chart (as featured elsewhere in this article and many others) but then wondered if this section is intended in full to describe the situation in 2012 in which case it might be appropriate, if confusing, to retain the 541 figure as part of the proposals set out at that time. The section as a whole perhaps needs updating from the perspective of April 2022. Geopersona (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good pick up @Geopersona as in my above reply (about eons), I'm working on revising this entire article. Because I'm making some substantial revisions I've been drafting it on my user page so I don't break this one for now. I'll make sure I adjust the dates in a sensible way for this. If you feel like helping out or providing some commentary on it, pop it on here and I'll be sure to look into it. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds good to me - good luck! cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Proposal section has been deleted. Why? 2601:441:4900:A6E0:91A4:2688:B6B:98E5 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was archived: a perfectly normal procedure. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal section that is being referred to was "Proposed Precambrian timeline", it has not been deleted but actually expanded within the section Geologic_time_scale#Major_proposed_revisions_to_the_ICC section, which includes the previous content, Anthropocene, and another proposal for the Precambrian of the ICC. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To those who are interested (@Geopersona, @Mikenorton, @Benniboi01, @User:GeoWriter?, please ignore if not interested) I've drafted a substantial revision to this article intially spurred on by the commentary above by @User:John Maynard Friedman. I drafted it seperately from this page as I have been making a lot of edits and it was easier to build upon the existing article content this way. I'd like to try elevate this article quality rating. This revision can be found here.

I've also made a new figure to replace the "clock" lead image to try adress previous criticism and have a more senisble progression (I do find a circle to be an odd representation of a linear timeline). I'm not "attached" to this figure and can retain the current circle if other editors prefer it. I've only got the final section (about non-Earth geologic time scales) to finish writing, and copyedit to fix spelling errors etc. The final section will incorporate the times (in the Hadean) I removed from the main table of geologic time that are non-Earth divisions as IMO these are conflating Earth's geologic time scale and the Moon's geologic time scale in an article spefically about Earth's geotime.

It would be much appreciated if I could have a second pair of eyes run over the draft, comment on layout (order of sections), comment on the newer lead image, suggest improvements (i.e. point out critical flaws) they think need to be made before incorporatating it into this main article etc. I'll start incorporating the changes from next Thursday (Aus time) when I return from field work. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, looking good. I won't be able to do a proper comparison until I get back from my current trip and can look at them side by side on a large screen, rather than the tablet I've got with me. Mikenorton (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look and I have one issue with it at the moment (aside from minor formatting issues which aren't really that important). I think it might be better if we change the bulleted list in the "terminology" section into prose, since a lot of those terms don't make sense to me to include in a list format like that. Otherwise, I think the draft is pretty solid. I especially like the new "principles" section, as it provides a nice way to link pages that are otherwise rarely mentioned elsewhere, while also providing some new info. Benniboi01 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bullet point formatting as per your suggestion, as they were written in prose anyway. I had the bulleted list originally to clearly delineate linked concepts and key concepts, but I think they are clear enough as I have them now anyway. What minor formatting issues are you eluding to? I've likely just missed them in my drafting process. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to me implementing the revised article (see here) and lead image? I've only got a tiny bit to add in the last section of the draft on Non-Earth based geologic time scales. It's a substantial rewrite of the page and I want to give a final heads up before I implement it. Obviously formatting/style may need to be adjusted afterwards if I've missed something or parts don't fit the MOS. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I really miss the horizontal time scale that presented Earth's geologic time at different scales, as seen in this revision (dated 18 May 2021—perhaps it also appears in later revisions, but there have been a lot of changes to the page since then). I find it the most readable and easily scanned version for just getting a sense of whole the epochs unfold across eons, etc. Is there anyway to bring that version back somewhere? I'm sorry I haven't followed the discussions that led to its disappearance, but I get frustrated everytime I return to this page to look up information about specific epochs, because I found that earlier version much more fun and easy to search than what I has appeared since. Thomascantor (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomascantor do you mean the multiple scale horizontal time scale that is in the Terminology section of the revision you have linked? if so, it is still in the article, but at the end of the Modern International Timescale subsection of the History section. I moved it when I revised the article to better separate the themes of a given section. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now. Thanks, Jarred C Lloyd, for the clarification and help. Thomascantor (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-expert I took a quick look at this article based on a request for feedback on the Geology project Talk.

I think the ICC, ICS, etc makes the article less approachable. I would start by moving 'Major proposed revisions to the ICC' down or even in to a separate article. This content is very detailed for the overall topic. Throughout the article I would avoid the acronyms or at least group them in to one paragraph for a section. The concept of these organizations is important for the article but their operating details are not. For example, the second sentence of Terminology,

• These are represented on the ICC published by the ICS; however, regional terms are still in use in some areas.

could easily go at the end of the section. Similarly the second paragraph of Principles.

The critical "Principles" section is too short. Rather than the bullet list, consider wp:summary paragraphs.

I would swap the order of "Divisions of geologic time" and the stuff before it which is full of VeryBigWords. The divisions section has more common words that readers can relate to.

I don't understand why there are two tables.

HTH. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnjbarton,

Thanks for the quick feedback, particularly as a non-expert. I'll have a go at implementing some of these suggestions shortly.

Do you think the proposed revisions section warrants its own article? Personally, I think it is a bit light for its own article, but agree that it has quite a lot of detail. I'd happily move it below the "Table of geologic time", and above, "Non-Earth..."

With reference to "Divisions of geologic time" and stuff before it, are you suggesting I move the divisions part ahead of "Chronostratigraphy is..."? I understand the VeryBigWords point you are making – I had placed the text as current so the terms like chronostratigraphic unit are defined prior to their use in the divisions.

There are multiple tables, which two are you referring to? Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I started on wikipedia I thought that articles should have a similar length. Now I think that the variety of lengths is a big advantage. Each article can be as long as needed to cover the topic and no more. A separate article on the "proposed revisions" would be free of the requirement to match the level of readers trying to understand "geologic time scale" for the first time. It could use ICC jargon without confusing the reader.

I also have a different suggestion: move the ICC revisions content to International Commission on Stratigraphy. Seems like that would make this article and the Commission article stronger.

I suggest describing "chronostratigraphy" and "geochronologic", perhaps less formally, in the first paragraph of Principles and again in Divisions. Maybe break it down, "time-layers" and "rock-dating". These words are key. Any reader who fails to understand or is put off by these words cannot proceed.

I was referring to the compound table in "Naming of geologic time" and long one in "Table of geologic time". I see now why you have two. I think the "Table of geologic time" should come much earlier as this is what many readers imagine the article will discuss. Maybe the Naming table could be in History? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon go for Good Article status first. Much easier and will give feedback that is essential for FAC.

If a plain word can be substituted for a jargon word without losing meaning then do it

every sentence should be referenced - putting comments in like this can make for easier reading

article has only 22 kb readable prose, so could be expanded to double the size before it needs splitting.

Good luck. Busy right now - will look more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas Liber,

On some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, I think GAN will be a sensible option in future. Currently it will fail immediately under the verifiable references criteria, mainly due to the "Table of geologic time" where people have added to the events column over many years without citing sources...it will be a Hurculean task to rectify this. I think it will be good to work on improving the rest of the article first where possible, then attempt to address that issue. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]