Template talk:Nature timeline

Created "{{Nature timeline}}" TalkPage

Created "Template talk:Nature timeline" page - ALSO =>See related "Template talk:Life timeline" and "Template talk:Human timeline" pages - ALSO => VPT post (06/28/2016) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Art of the Nature Timelines on Wikipedia"

Template:Hominins

Template:Nature-v

Template:LifeOnEarth-v

Template:Nature-h

Template:LocationOfEarth

Template:LifeOnEarth

Template:Hominin

Best wording for "{{Nature timeline}}" events?

@BDwinds: IF Possible, the best wording(s) for the "{{Nature timeline}}" (as well as the "{{Life timeline}}" and the "{{Human timeline}}") may be wordings as non-technical and as brief as possible - more detail re the event may be found at associated wikilinks - this may make the "{{Nature timeline}}" more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - Comments/Suggestions Welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

@Drbogdan: Thanks for the feedback and the revision; as an astronomer, I may not have the best feeling as to what is most easily understandable to the average reader. I agree about the lengthiness, just did not expect something like "NGC 188" may come over as more than some cryptic alphanumerical code to many readers. "Star cluster" should serve well -- cheers! --BDwinds (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @BDwinds: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're all *greatly* appreciated - yes - agreed - wording is ok - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This illustration seems of little relevance to the big rip theory, which consequences mostly apply to the future. As for the observations the theory explains (lately accelerated expansion, inflation?), they are not present or not related to in the text. Now, the problem seems to be general to all "bigs" theories (crunch, freeze, etc.), as the same timeline is shown. 134.171.34.25 (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you for your comments - the "{{Nature timeline}}" template is intended to be an overview (for the purpose of context) of very basic events (as far as is known at the moment) since the beginning of the "universe" - the vertical "Primordial" entry in the template is wikilinked to the "Chronology of the universe" article, which refers to the "Big Rip", the "Big Crunch", "Inflation", and much more - the noted "cosmic speed-up" event in the template is wikilinked to the "Accelerating expansion of the universe" article - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Complex Life, Land Life, Cambrian explosion

Linked "Complex Life" region, starting about 2500 Mya to Eukaryotes, instead of multicellulars, a more important milestone, and made "Land Life" region begin with Silurian, as there was negligible colonization of land before that. Added Cambrian explosion as significant event on right side.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @CharlesHBennett: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - "Land life" on the timeline has now been adjusted (from -0.541 Bya) to a somewhat more accurate time (-0.4438 Bya) (per "Silurian" article) and is now wikilinked to "Silurian#Flora and fauna" - hope this helps in some way - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Multicellular life

The article Multicellular life says "The first evidence of multicellularity is from cyanobacteria-like organisms that lived 3–3.5 billion years ago", but the figure on this template says 2.5 billion and the copy? {{Life timeline}} says 1.5 billion. (ohh, and both templates are on this talk page, so it should be obvious that they are contradicting each other). Christian75 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Christian75: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - seems "multicellular life" began with "cyanobacteria" (and/or "photosynthesis") about 3500 Mya - the "photosynthesis" section is noted (in color) accordingly - in both timelines: ie, the "{{Life timeline}}" and the "{{Nature timeline}}" - both timelines indicate that the "photosynthesis" section begins at 3500 Mya - and this event is wikilinked to the "Evolution of photosynthesis" article which describes the relationship of "photosynthesis" with "cyanobacteria" in great detail (also see => 'Evolution of photosynthesis#Origin") - please understand that the timelines are intended to suggest - in a very, very broad way - the overall sequence of significant biological events as best we may know them at the present time - more details re the events themselves can be found at the wikilinked articles - Comments Welcome from other editors - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?

FWIW - Seems the following edit is relevant, worthy and well sourced - and should be copied to talk:

Copied from "User talk:Red Planet X (Hercolubus)#First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?":

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): Thank you for your recent edits on the {{Nature timeline}} -
QUESTION: Do you have a reference to support your noted 4.412 bya data? So far, I've found cited support for the 4.4 bya data at the following => "Origin of water on Earth#Water in the development of Earth" - and - "National Science Foundation (2001)" - Several references, "NASA (2005)" - and - "National Geographic (2001)", suggests a more recent date => 4.3 bya - in any case - Thanks again for your edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): BRIEF Followup - answer may have been found - seems the oceans may have formed as early as => at least 4.404 ± 0.008 bya - based on dating of Zircon minerals - this seems to account for your noted 4.412 bya data - in any regards - Thanks again for your recent editing efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Fix "Odd images" problem with page WP:PURGE

-- Edit request re odd images --

Copied from "Template talk:Human timeline#Edit request re odd images":

Page has been vandalized, please remove obscene photos. 121.214.61.2 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you for your note - now "fixed" - however - affected transcluded pages may need to be refreshed with a "WP:PURGE" - if interested, please see related technical discussion at the following => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HELP: Templates broken - need urgent attention?" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Earliest light

{{{2}}}

{{{2}}}

I think this is mistaken. The date is given as 13.42 Gya, which would amount to 380 My after the Big Bang, plus it is linked to cosmic microwave background. What I think this was meant to express is Decoupling (cosmology), which happened about 380 ky after the Big Bang. I.e. it is off by a factor of 1,000, "380 thousand years" accidentially became "380 million years". Of course there is no way to graphically represent 380 kya on this scale, but this is no reason to just show this single event misplaced by a factor of 1k.

There are other problems with the "cosmological" part (what is "earliest gravity", why are "dark matter" and "dark energy" marked where they are?).

--dab (𒁳) 07:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: Thank you for your comments - and recent adjustments to the {{Nature timeline}}/(original-20180304) (as well as to the {{Life timeline}}/(original-20180408) and the {{Human timeline}}/(original-20180303)).

FWIW - Several Notes:

• Re: "Earliest light in the universe"

Originally based, in part, on the following: (also here)

Oldest Light in the Universe =>

The CMB is a faint cosmic background radiation filling all space that is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.

– From Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

• Re: "Earliest gravity in the universe"

Originally based, in part, on the following:

It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas.

– From The early universe - CERN

ALSO – from the lede of the Gravity article =>

The earliest instance of gravity in the Universe, possibly in the form of quantum gravity, supergravity or a gravitational singularity, along with ordinary space and time, developed during the Planck epoch (up to 10⁻⁴³ seconds after the birth of the Universe), possibly from a primeval state, such as a false vacuum, quantum vacuum or virtual particle, in a currently unknown manner.

ALSO – from the book "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking

The authors write:

“ Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. ” — Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 2010

Hope the above notes help in some way - in any regards - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Hello, I was wondering if you could change where the words are where the dark age part is. They are overlapping. 2601:40B:8500:2F70:B51F:EBA0:8F9E:79C (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I see what you're referring to, but extending the dark area would probably result in an inaccurate graph; and reducing the size of the text would make it unreadable, so I think the current solution is the most appropriate compromise. If, of course, a regular here has a better option feel free to implement it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Age of the Alpha Centauri system is marked too old

Currently, this template marks the birth date of the Alpha Centauri system as roughly 6.2 billion years. However, the Alpha Centauri page lists it as just 5.3 billion, which is more plausible since Alpha Centauri A having a mass of 1.1 solar masses would have left the main sequence already to become a giant star.