Talk:Geologic time scale

Dates in 'Proposed Precambrian Timeline' section

I was about to change the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary dates (of which there are 3 occurrences) from 541 Ma to 539 Ma in accordance with the recently published ICS chart (as featured elsewhere in this article and many others) but then wondered if this section is intended in full to describe the situation in 2012 in which case it might be appropriate, if confusing, to retain the 541 figure as part of the proposals set out at that time. The section as a whole perhaps needs updating from the perspective of April 2022. Geopersona (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Good pick up @Geopersona as in my above reply (about eons), I'm working on revising this entire article. Because I'm making some substantial revisions I've been drafting it on my user page so I don't break this one for now. I'll make sure I adjust the dates in a sensible way for this. If you feel like helping out or providing some commentary on it, pop it on here and I'll be sure to look into it. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me - good luck! cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The entire Proposal section has been deleted. Why? 2601:441:4900:A6E0:91A4:2688:B6B:98E5 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it was archived: a perfectly normal procedure. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If the proposal section that is being referred to was "Proposed Precambrian timeline", it has not been deleted but actually expanded within the section Geologic_time_scale#Major_proposed_revisions_to_the_ICC section, which includes the previous content, Anthropocene, and another proposal for the Precambrian of the ICC. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Revision of article

To those who are interested (@Geopersona, @Mikenorton, @Benniboi01, @User:GeoWriter?, please ignore if not interested) I've drafted a substantial revision to this article intially spurred on by the commentary above by @User:John Maynard Friedman. I drafted it seperately from this page as I have been making a lot of edits and it was easier to build upon the existing article content this way. I'd like to try elevate this article quality rating. This revision can be found here.

I've also made a new figure to replace the "clock" lead image to try adress previous criticism and have a more senisble progression (I do find a circle to be an odd representation of a linear timeline). I'm not "attached" to this figure and can retain the current circle if other editors prefer it. I've only got the final section (about non-Earth geologic time scales) to finish writing, and copyedit to fix spelling errors etc. The final section will incorporate the times (in the Hadean) I removed from the main table of geologic time that are non-Earth divisions as IMO these are conflating Earth's geologic time scale and the Moon's geologic time scale in an article spefically about Earth's geotime.

It would be much appreciated if I could have a second pair of eyes run over the draft, comment on layout (order of sections), comment on the newer lead image, suggest improvements (i.e. point out critical flaws) they think need to be made before incorporatating it into this main article etc. I'll start incorporating the changes from next Thursday (Aus time) when I return from field work. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, looking good. I won't be able to do a proper comparison until I get back from my current trip and can look at them side by side on a large screen, rather than the tablet I've got with me. Mikenorton (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I just took a look and I have one issue with it at the moment (aside from minor formatting issues which aren't really that important). I think it might be better if we change the bulleted list in the "terminology" section into prose, since a lot of those terms don't make sense to me to include in a list format like that. Otherwise, I think the draft is pretty solid. I especially like the new "principles" section, as it provides a nice way to link pages that are otherwise rarely mentioned elsewhere, while also providing some new info. Benniboi01 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the bullet point formatting as per your suggestion, as they were written in prose anyway. I had the bulleted list originally to clearly delineate linked concepts and key concepts, but I think they are clear enough as I have them now anyway. What minor formatting issues are you eluding to? I've likely just missed them in my drafting process. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Any objections to me implementing the revised article (see here) and lead image? I've only got a tiny bit to add in the last section of the draft on Non-Earth based geologic time scales. It's a substantial rewrite of the page and I want to give a final heads up before I implement it. Obviously formatting/style may need to be adjusted afterwards if I've missed something or parts don't fit the MOS. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I really miss the horizontal time scale that presented Earth's geologic time at different scales, as seen in this revision (dated 18 May 2021—perhaps it also appears in later revisions, but there have been a lot of changes to the page since then). I find it the most readable and easily scanned version for just getting a sense of whole the epochs unfold across eons, etc. Is there anyway to bring that version back somewhere? I'm sorry I haven't followed the discussions that led to its disappearance, but I get frustrated everytime I return to this page to look up information about specific epochs, because I found that earlier version much more fun and easy to search than what I has appeared since. Thomascantor (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thomascantor do you mean the multiple scale horizontal time scale that is in the Terminology section of the revision you have linked? if so, it is still in the article, but at the end of the Modern International Timescale subsection of the History section. I moved it when I revised the article to better separate the themes of a given section. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Thanks, Jarred C Lloyd, for the clarification and help. Thomascantor (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merging the geological timeline articles? Geologic time scale - Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Timeline of human evolution

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.

Not merged, there is a clear consensus that the two topics should be covered on their own pages despite some level of overlap. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

---

I am interested in the past of Earth and life, a fan of extinct lifeforms, but I am not an expert in any relevant field, i.e. I am not a professional geologist, palaeontologist, palaeoclimatologist or something like that.

Nevertheless, while browsing articles, I found this article to significantly overlap with Timeline of the evolutionary history of life and at least partially with Timeline of human evolution. Thus I propose merging this article with Timeline of the evolutionary history of life and refocusing Timeline of human evolution towards Hominidae or at least primate evolution specific dates. Of course, the first Bilateria represent an important milestone, but such milestones can be explained in this article or Timeline of the evolutionary history of life in my opinion. PragmaFisch (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the timescale. Evolutionary and geological are very different. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I do see the point - however, Geologic time scale contains quite a lot of information on life and its evolution, too. Might that be better suited to Timeline of the evolutionary history of life? Also, I love Geologic time scale most because the scrollable timetable with the common colours and explanations etc. which provides an excellent overview. Maybe this at least could be incorporated into Timeline of the evolutionary history of life? PragmaFisch (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Despite some extent of overlap given their geological natures, geologic time scale and timeline of the evolutionary history of life are two different concepts, the former focusing on the stratigraphic side and the latter focusing on the paleobiological side. Merging the two pages would result in an excessively long page. They both can overlap in discussing stratigraphic ranges of life forms, but for the geologic time scale page, it's not the main topic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be opposed to merging the two, as the only real overlap seems to be the fact that they both use the same division of deep time and the fact that the timeline on this article also has some information on what was happening at the time, also pertaining to life that existed. The topics they cover (those being stratigraphic and paleobiological) are quite far apart, and merging them together would result in a much messier article than either of the two seperate ones. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - the timelines each have a different scope: geological development of Earth, lifeforms, human lifeform; each of which needs its own chronological reckoning.    — The Transhumanist   11:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - There is inevitably some overlap between the timelines but any sort of combined timeline would not, in my view, do any of the topics justice. Mikenorton (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - While there is some overlap due to the nature of how geological time is defined and how biologicial evolution in inherently linked with geologic processes, merging of the two articles would not do either topic justice. As it stands, I believe both articles are able to elaborate on their specific topics in better detail and with greater cohesion and readability than a merged article would be able to do. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback

As a non-expert I took a quick look at this article based on a request for feedback on the Geology project Talk.

I think the ICC, ICS, etc makes the article less approachable. I would start by moving 'Major proposed revisions to the ICC' down or even in to a separate article. This content is very detailed for the overall topic. Throughout the article I would avoid the acronyms or at least group them in to one paragraph for a section. The concept of these organizations is important for the article but their operating details are not. For example, the second sentence of Terminology,

• These are represented on the ICC published by the ICS; however, regional terms are still in use in some areas.

could easily go at the end of the section. Similarly the second paragraph of Principles.

The critical "Principles" section is too short. Rather than the bullet list, consider wp:summary paragraphs.

I would swap the order of "Divisions of geologic time" and the stuff before it which is full of VeryBigWords. The divisions section has more common words that readers can relate to.

I don't understand why there are two tables.

HTH. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Johnjbarton,

Thanks for the quick feedback, particularly as a non-expert. I'll have a go at implementing some of these suggestions shortly.

Do you think the proposed revisions section warrants its own article? Personally, I think it is a bit light for its own article, but agree that it has quite a lot of detail. I'd happily move it below the "Table of geologic time", and above, "Non-Earth..."

With reference to "Divisions of geologic time" and stuff before it, are you suggesting I move the divisions part ahead of "Chronostratigraphy is..."? I understand the VeryBigWords point you are making – I had placed the text as current so the terms like chronostratigraphic unit are defined prior to their use in the divisions.

There are multiple tables, which two are you referring to? Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

When I started on wikipedia I thought that articles should have a similar length. Now I think that the variety of lengths is a big advantage. Each article can be as long as needed to cover the topic and no more. A separate article on the "proposed revisions" would be free of the requirement to match the level of readers trying to understand "geologic time scale" for the first time. It could use ICC jargon without confusing the reader.

I also have a different suggestion: move the ICC revisions content to International Commission on Stratigraphy. Seems like that would make this article and the Commission article stronger.

I suggest describing "chronostratigraphy" and "geochronologic", perhaps less formally, in the first paragraph of Principles and again in Divisions. Maybe break it down, "time-layers" and "rock-dating". These words are key. Any reader who fails to understand or is put off by these words cannot proceed.

I was referring to the compound table in "Naming of geologic time" and long one in "Table of geologic time". I see now why you have two. I think the "Table of geologic time" should come much earlier as this is what many readers imagine the article will discuss. Maybe the Naming table could be in History? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

I reckon go for Good Article status first. Much easier and will give feedback that is essential for FAC.

If a plain word can be substituted for a jargon word without losing meaning then do it

every sentence should be referenced - putting comments in like this can make for easier reading

article has only 22 kb readable prose, so could be expanded to double the size before it needs splitting.

Good luck. Busy right now - will look more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cas Liber,

On some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, I think GAN will be a sensible option in future. Currently it will fail immediately under the verifiable references criteria, mainly due to the "Table of geologic time" where people have added to the events column over many years without citing sources...it will be a Hurculean task to rectify this. I think it will be good to work on improving the rest of the article first where possible, then attempt to address that issue. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

New edition of ICS chart

There is a new edition of the ICS stratigraphy chart (as of December 2024 - https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2024-12.pdf ).

Here is a list of changes: https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChangeLog2012-2024.txt

Should these be included in their respective articles? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, despite its recency, this source has extensive review and a track record. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)