Wikipedia

Talk:List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Update requested in September 2008 edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit by Beland (talk · contribs) added an {{update}} request to the article, but without details as to what was out-of-date, the template is worthless. I am removing the template, but welcome its restoration as long as the talk page identifies what the issues are. 72.244.200.34 (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article says "By 2008, all but three stages of the Phanerozoic will be bounded by GSSPs." It's 2012 now. Did this happen? -- Beland (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I removed that sentece. Seems to me that should be discussed in the GSSP article and not the list. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Out of date tagging: Redux edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I have restored the out of date tag. The problem is that the dates in these tables are well out of date (and possibly the spike info). I just spent a bunch of time updating Template:Geologic time scale, following the most up-to-date ICS timescale - Gradstein and Ogg's Geologic Time Scale 2012, as seen now on their site: [1]. That appears to also be the most up-to-date source for what is currently golden-spiked.

Incidentally, and in addition, this article doesn't actually make clear what the ones tagged with the golden spikes mean, which is really compromising the article. DanHobley (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I did a lot of work on this list a while ago. The golden spikes are the same as the ones on the 2012 time scale. This includes all valid GSSPs and those that are valid but which are under renewed discussion (So they could acutually be removed or changed in the near future). --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The most up-to-date ages for stage boundaries may be found here: https://engineering.purdue.edu/Stratigraphy/charts/chart.html - but I am not sure I can work on it anytime soon. If someone else wish to uptake this tedious work of updating the numbers, it would be wow. --Kaapitone (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
All the numbers are in a template and up to date. I went through the list a while ago. If you see any mistakes you can contact me and I will change the template. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yep... some of the ages in the Triassic I am sure they are not the latest - that's my favourite period so I am always keeping an eye on it. I didn't check other periods, maybe most are fine - lot went on about the Triassic lately, but pretty sure the numbers won't change anymore in the Neogene, for example. --Kaapitone (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
The template can be found here: {{Geologic_Ages_Inline}}. It is used in a lot of articles, so we have to be careful, to not break it. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

New layout edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The way the table is organized now is a little problematic. A novice reader might think that the Cambrian is the period between Stage 10 and the Tremadocian. I think we have to think of a better way to do this. Maybe the more standard first column rowspaned over the whole Cambrian. --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Spanning first column is the standard way to do it, however, as a temporary solution, is it possible - and perhaps easier - to insert a blank line before (above) each of the period names-lines? --Kaapitone (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Navigability edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When making links to the list, to my limited knowledge, it is not possible to be more specific that #List. This list however is huge and it may take a substantial amount of scrowling and searching to find what you are looking for. Perhaps there is a solution. I wouldn't mind if the table was split up per period, but I note that all tables were merged before, probably for good reason. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

An editor merged the tables a while ago. I also thought the old layout was easier to navigate. link --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
  Done Tobias1984 (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Global_Boundary_Stratotype_Sections_and_Points&oldid=1208240908"