Template talk:Geological history
|This template was considered for deletion on 2015 November 12. The result of the discussion was "keep".|
|WikiProject Geology||(Rated Template-class)|
Hi! I have a few questions about the way the units of the geologic timescale are listed here:
- The Quarternary has at the moment an unclear status, however, the ICS will most likely decide it to be a third period in the Cenozoic, containing two epochs: Pleistocene and Holocene. (I changed that)
- The subdivisions of the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian epochs are only regionally used and are not recognized by the ICS. The subdivision of the Carboniferous period into stages can be seen in the timeline in the article Carboniferous.
- The Hadean eon and its subdivisions are only used when the Moon is concerned (exept for the timescale by Harland et al 1989, which is no longer used). It should be left out. The Precambrian has no official status any longer and should also be left out.
- Why is the Phanerozoic not put in the same level as other eons? Woodwalker (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was trying as faithfully as possible to adapt the table seen here into a template. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Up or down chronology
Just a style point. The three pull-down-able tabs are ordered such that the oldest is at the bottom, but when you open a tab, the oldest eras/periods/epochs appear, counter-intuitively, at the top. It might make more sense to apply the same top-to-bottom "arrow of time" at both levels. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Would this be better?
Add word "Eon" to Phanerozoic name
It is an eon, but for Precambrian time we have eons (units of the same rank) in a left column rather than as horizontal bars. So, we might as well type out "Phanerozoic Eon" for the sake of clarity. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you guys change the colors from ICS to USGS Standard or revert colors on geolgoic time scale to this set because the colors on the geologic time scale does not corrspond to the colors on this template. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:01 February 17 2013 (UTC) 17:01 2/17/2013 EST
Can you contributors move the Epochs in the Phanerozoic Era to its own section in its Periods. Would this be better? I do let you try to get this template auto collapse hidden state and get the Precambrian ,Phanerozoic , Paleozoic , Mesozoic , Cenozoic collapsible. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:08 March 8 2013 (UTC) 9:08pm 3/7/2013 EST
- Thanks for the useful draft, but I have a few queries
- 1 It seems a bit out of date. It does not take account of the change in the Tonian/Cryogenian boundary in the 2015 ICS chart at . I do not know whether there are other changes.
- 2 The ICS chart shows no division of the Hadean into periods, but the periods in this chart does not star them as not recognised by the ICS.
- 3 I am puzzled about the links to sources at the end. The first appears to go to a short passage of Chinese or Japanese, the second to the Wiki article on the ICS and then says retrieved 2012, which would make it very out of date.
- 4 What is the source for divisions not recognised by the ICS?
I have corrected the chart for the recent ICS change in the Tonian/Cryogenian boundary, but there are still some problems. ICS shows the Hadean just as -4600 to 4000, whereas this chart shows a detailed breakdown of the period into 3 sub-periods. This division is not shown in either of the sources cited, the 2014 ICS chart and the (very out of date) UGS chart. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Geology#Which articles should have a geological time navbox?. Please feel free to join in that discussion. —hike395 (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
New Simple and Detailed Templates
FWIW - an alternative template - which may be as simple as the present one - but more accurate? - has been created => as follows:
ALSO - a more complete - and detailed template - has been created - which may be useful in some form (at some time) - or may not be useful based on a "recent discussion" (due to mobile versions, navbox and complexity issues) => as follows: