This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
I removed the "Co2 glacial cycles 800k" graph from the Sangamonian (stage) article because this graph uses stratigraphic terminology that is hopelessly antiquated, obsolete, and meaningless. I discuss in the talk section for that figure. Before this graph can be used, it needs to be revised to remove the discredited Quaternary stratigraphic terminology and have it replaced with the correct Quaternary stratigraphic terminology. Paul H. (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion is no consensus for merge. Miniapolis 16:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the Eemian except it's using the American name. There doesn't need to be duplication based on nomenclature.18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The statement that the the Eemian is just the American name is not completely correct. As noted in the article, there are two different ways of defining the Sangamonian Stage. In one definition, the Sangamonian Stage is equivalent to all of Oxygen Isotope Stage 5 and, thus, includes part of the Weichsel Glacial Stage. In the other definition, the Sangamonian Stage is defined as Oxygen Isotope Substage 5e and, thus, is equivalent to the Eemian. If anything the opening sentence for the Sangamonian Stage article needs to corrected because depending on how this term is used the Sangamonian Stage as used in North America is not always the same term as the Eemian Period. I am against merging this article because the premise for merging overlooks the different usage of Sangamonian Stage Paul H. (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Another problem with merging the Sangamonian Stage with the Eemian Period is that falsely promotes the misconception / oversimplification that the North American glacial - interglacial stages are defined in the same manner as the European glacial stages which is incorrect as they are not. Both glacial - interglacial stage systems are based upon regional, not global, criteria. Thus, although they are in some ways approximately equivalent, it is incorrect and misleading to portray them as being exact time-stratigraphic equivalents as merging them falsely assumes. Paul H. (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.