Talk:Period (geology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Period (geology) 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Time  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

I am new to this kind of exchange. I was searching for translations from my native German to English and found discrepancies in the naming of geological periods from Europe to North-America. However I found the following periods for North-American, not listed in the article:


Cretaceous is can be split in Upper Cretaceous and Comanchean (lower Cretaceous)

Proterozoic is not divided into periods, so the epochs, Keweenawan, Beltian, Huronian and Grand Canyon can be shown as subdivisions, though I could not find a time-line behind them

Achreozoic (as Proterozoic) is not split into periods and the epochs Timiskaming, Keewatin and Vishnu can be shown in this place.

Thus I would change the table as shown below:

|-----------|-------------------|
|Cretaceous | Upper Cretaceous  |
|           |-------------------|
|           | Comanchean        |
|           | (Lower Cretaceous |
|-----------|-------------------|


|-----------|-------------------|-----------------|
|Proteozoic | not     |Keweenawan   Beltian       |
|           | divided |Huronian     Grand Canyon  |
|-----------| into    |---------------------------|
|Archeozoic | periods | Timiskaming               |
|           |         | Keewatin    Vishnu        |
|-------------------------------------------------|

Unfortunatley, I did not note down the time-line, when I found these periods, but will mend this next time I sign in.

Assumptions?[edit]

There are many assumptions in this article regarding the references to the geological column which are put forward as facts. This is still theoretical as are all the dates. The geological column exists nowhere in the world! This article should be noted as being based on generally accepted, but unproven, theories. Refer definition empirical science and please apply.

If you are using fossils to date the rock layers and then using rock layer to date the fossils: isn't this circular reasoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.154.222 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Fossils are used to delineate relative ages i.e. which rock layers were laid down before which other rock layers. This is not the same as absolute dating (e.g. radiometric dating, or similar), i.e. how many years ago in absolute time were those rock layers laid down. Badgerpatrol (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Failed Mergeto[edit]

  • Today {{Mergeto|Geologic time scale|date=August 2007}} was removed with prejudice: no informed discussion, no initiated discussion section with link, and been round far too long given either... not to mention the difference in meaning of the two official terms. // FrankB 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-write[edit]

I've almost certainly got some things wrong or else improperly explained in my attempt to re-write what had been a confusing and inaccurate article. If you can improve it, not least with references then please do so. thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeation[edit]

The Pliocene and Miocene are listed twice in the brackets on bullet point three of the "Continuity issues" section. This should be changed should it not?--Aquakeeper14 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks -- Vsmith (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)