Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleCretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 4, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 11, 2008Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 6, 2010.
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Paleogene?[edit]

The event is almost always called the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The early part of the Tertiary is now officially called the Paleogene. Older scientific texts did refer to "Cretaceous-Tertiary" but this would be regarded as obsolete/incorrect if it were to be used now. GeoWriter (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we have a source for the fact that K-T would be incorrect, or obsolete? I heard a geology professor go on at great length about it just today. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It is correct that ICS now discourages the use of the word Tertiary, but Cretaceous-Tertiary is not generally considered incorrect or obsolete. A search on Google Scholar for articles published in 2017 shows 1560 hits for "Cretaceous-Tertiary" and 1340 for "Cretaceous–Paleogene". The older term is thus still more popular even in scholarly sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Location of impact[edit]

A recent BBC TV programme argued that the location of the impact in an area rich in sulphur and gypsum was crucial, and if the impact had occurred a few minutes earlier or later it would have been in the deep ocean, and the effects would not have been catastrophic. The dinosaurs would have survived and humans would not have evolved. See [1]. Does anyone know of an RS on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Size of the Impactor[edit]

See Talk:Chicxulub_impactor#Size_of_the_Impactor for a discussion.

Whatever you do, keep the two article in line with each other. 217.248.54.67 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I just updated the article Maastrichtian. All three articles should be kept in line with each other.CuriousEric 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mammal info is dated[edit]

The section on mammals is badly dated. ' Diversification of mammals stalled across the boundary.[citation from 2007] Current research indicates that mammals did not explosively diversify across the K–Pg boundary, despite the environment niches made available by the extinction of dinosaurs.[citation from 2003].' This is no longer the consensus. Instead diversification rates increased to around 3 times pre-event levels: Halliday, Upchurch, and Goswamil, Proceedings Biological Science, 2016 Jun 29; 283(1833): 20153026. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.3026, "Eutherians experienced elevated evolutionary rates in the immediate aftermath of the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4936024/ . Other evidence corroborates. The idea that the CT event had little impact on mammal evolution rates is no longer viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)