From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Oligocene is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Oligocene at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Oligocene 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


en: Oligoceen? Is that right? Isn't EN English? --Dante Alighieri 21:39 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

AMK152's Geotimeboxes[edit]

AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article as follows:

Eon: Proterozoic • Phanerozoic • [[{{{ea}}}]]
Era: Mesozoic • Cenozoic • [[]]
Period: Cretaceous • Paleogene • Neogene
Epoch: Eocene • Oligocene • Miocene

I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footer, and that other extraneous information, such as previous eons, can be supplied where important, by links from the text. I removed the geotimebox and left the footer, pending discussion. --Bejnar 02:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Morbas (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Miller[edit]

The Miller et al. citation "[2]" doesn't support the text "The Oligocene was a 'global' [1] 'cooling event not related to ice volume' [2]".

Specifically, what Miller says is that there was a cooling event in the earliest Oligocene at their site and immediately following this there was a ~55 m drop in sea level at their site which they link to increasing ice volume. Clearly the cooling is related to, and presumably caused, the change in ice volume which is in fact a major feature of Oligocene climate since this is the first nucleation of Antarctica. How that got worked around to the "cooling event [is] not related to ice volume", I can't imagine. Miller et al. further claims that ~1/2 the isotopic excursion at their site is from temperature and the other half is presumed to be caused by ice volume changes. Dragons flight (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. That is what I was trying to imply; Miller said ice volume precurser was "primarly a cooling event not an ice-volume event": not consequencial. Since the event lasted 0.4M-years, differentiating the isotopic excursion I think is out of scope. Honestly, I did not notice your comments before changing the Climate Section. Further comments even suggestions welcome.
  2. Climate is a good section...Morbas (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Morbas (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this section can be closed. Issue is addressed. Morbas (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lower and Upper Oligocene[edit]

Lower Oligocene and Upper Oligocene need redirects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Major Edit to Ocean Section[edit]

Hello! I would like to make a major edit to the ocean section of this page for a class project. Unfortunately, I kind of have to do it now. I didn't want to make a major edit without some sort of warning, though. While I hope my addition will be useful, I'm new to all of this and will probably make some mistakes.

I intend to add information about oceanic circulation (including different passage and gateway openings), deep water formation, and ocean temperatures. Roughly 2000 words will be added. I would have images, too, but I didn't know about the Wikipedia image policy, so I will probably only add what I can find from the Commons.

I apologize for the hastiness and I would appreciate your patience.

Seasonal Note (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As that section currently is a one liner, addition of solid referenced content will be welcomed. So, charge on. If you have questions, just ask - either here or on my talk. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I made the edit. I do intend to continue refining it, as I know it has issues, so please let me know what I can do to improve. Thank you! Seasonal Note (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Paleogeography:European Marine Incursion[edit]

Where in Europe did this occur and what evidence is there for it? -- Brothernight (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Closure of the Tethys Sea[edit]

This section claims that this closure resulted in a reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but there is not even a suggestion of the mechanism involved in such a reduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothernight (talkcontribs) 12:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Deep Water[edit]

Given that there must have always been some deep water in these locales, I have assumed that what the author intended to say was that these waters became colder and have changed the wording accordingly. Also, the statement that the time that the Drake Passage opened is unimportant is very puzzling without supporting arguments for that position. Previously, the article illustrated a very significant back-and-forth among climatologists over that very issue. -- Brothernight (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


Reversed dates, start must be earlier than end date Morbas (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The order of numbers in the age table[edit]

I'm used to reading ages in the order "starting age" - "end age", this is the case for about half of the pages in the time scale I've read on wikipedia today. In the other half like in this article the ages are the other way around as in "end age" - "starting age". This is annoys me and I wonder if we can decide to do all of the pages in one way or the other. I basically would like to change the table from Rupelian 28.1–33.9 as it says currently, to Rupelian 33.9 - 28.1. Perhaps there is a better place to discuss this, but I don't know much about Wikipedia. Hervigin (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)