Talk:Lunar geologic timescale

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).

Geology C‑class Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Lunar geologic timescale 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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lunalogic?

Shouldn't it be lunalogic timescale, or lunarlogic? Because geologic refers to the earth (from Greek γη- (ge-, "the earth")). Just something to keep you awake at night. Dukemeiser 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Selenologic", actually (Selene is the Greek word for Moon whereas Luna is Latin, scientists don't like mixing Latin and Greek). See for example Selenography. Bryan 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"MY" units incorrect

3200 MY to 1100 MY is using an undocumented non-standard "MY" unit. Presumably this is millions of years ago, abbreviated mya, m.y.a., or Ma. The article should use one of those. -- Skierpage 11:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its somewhat rare to see Mya in the scientific literature, so I vote for Ma and Ga. However, these abreviations are often used to mean both "million years ago" and "a million years" (probably incorrectly). Perhaps it would be a good idea to cite the rules concerning their proper usage here. Lunokhod 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Groups

I have found two reputable authorities for the Basin Groups Stage as a subdivision of the Pre-Nectarian. Take a look at the GeoWhen database and Harland, Walter Brian , et al. (1989) A Geologic Time Scale 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Fig. 1.7 on page 10, available via Google books, which shows both Basin Groups and Cryptic. Unfortunately the textual discussion is not available as part of the Google offering. I do realize that at present these subdivisions remain more theoretical than real, as many lunar deposits are still just lumped together as Pre-Imbrian age materials, which may account for the absence of mention of Basin Groups in Wilhelms' book and Martel's article. I also found a recent usage in Birriel, Jennifer (2006) "The Faint Young Sun Paradox" Mercury 35:6, pp.12-19, on page 17. --Bejnar 02:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Groups article proposed for deletion.

The Basin Groups article (discussing a purported lunar or terrestrial geologic era) had been proposed for deletion. Please leave your comments on the appropriate page.Lunokhod 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower and Upper Imbrian is wrong.

An epoch is a geochronological unit of time. Geochronological units are called Early and Late Imbrian. Lower and Upper Imbrian indicates that it's a chronostratigraphic unit i.e. segments of rock. During the Early/Late Imbrian epoch the Lower/Upper Imbrian series (rock segments) were created. The {{Timeline Lunar Geological Timescale}} and {{Lunar-geo-time‎}} are wrong too. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]