Talk:Cenozoic

message: Is it confusing to anyone else that the vertical timeline on the right of the article goes up, as in, the opposite direction that the the text is reading?  I stared at this for many seconds before realizing that the reason it did not make sense was that the timeline was like a thermometer, rather than time falling through gravity.
-This is normal for vertical geological timescales. -Tom Bishop  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.216.208 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Misdirections

message: I wish someone smarter and handier than I would create a box with the time subdivisions in it. Since "Cainozoic" or "Caenozoic" misspellings are mentioned, why leave out "Coenozoic'? Could they be eliminated without harm? (Wetman 18 Sep 2003)
:Eliminated them today, after a year and a half. Too precipitous and rash? Any book titles with these odd spellings? --Wetman 07:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added Caenozoic once again as it is in current use in Britain - see for example thias - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/business-centre/publishing/books/fossils/british-caenozoic-fossils/index.html published by the Natural History Museum, London. cheers Geopersona (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: mispellings?

message: *chunk of text in overview from columbia , I'll remove. Matt 16:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio 

message: This article reads (in intro), "the Cenozoic is the era when continents moved into their current positions."  But the Mesozoic article reads, "The continents gradually shifted from a state of connectedness into their present configuration."
which is correct?  they can't both.... --25 October 2006 NCartmell 
*Well configuration is not the same as position. Their relative positions could have been established in the Mesozoic, and their absolute positions established in the Cenozoic.  However, since the plates are still moving, their absolute positions and even relative positions are in flux.  The articles should probably say something like for the Mesozoic "recognizable as the current continents" and for the Cenozoic "substantially in their current positions." --Bejnar 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction with Mesozoic article

message: AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article.  I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footer, and that other information can be supplied where important, by links from the text.   See discussion at Template talk:Geotimebox. --Bejnar 20:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:AMK152|AMK152's]] Geotimeboxes

message: Sorry, I'm not a Wikipedia edit expert, but there's no sense in which large metazoa "dominate" this, or any other period. Most biomass is plants and bacteria. Animals represent a few percent of total biomass and most of them are protostomes. Mammals and birds represent a tiny, tiny proportion of life on Earth. Great graphic here: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:861:53:C990:9925:6F83:D677:FCC8 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 20:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  animals of this time period 

message: Why the past tense in "The Cenozoic was a period of long-term cooling"? I tried to address it but got reverted, so I'm assuming there's a reason for it, but it's beyond me. -- Jao (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody seems to have a reason, I'm switching back to "has been". -- Jao (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense 

message: I don't know how to fix the timeline template on the top right, but something in it is messed up, the dates and descriptions that usually floated next to the time periods have been pushed down till they overlap the text beneath. This happened after Zorrobot ran, as I was reading the page in a good state, came back after some clicks, and it was broken. I couldn't even figure out how to copy and paste an old version of the timeline template in. 72.205.23.162 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix Timeline

message: The  pronunciation falderal at the beginning is an unnecessary distraction. Anyone literate enough to read the article should be literate enough to known the pronumceation of Cenozoic.  Alternative and defunct spellings are also unnessessary. It is sufficient simply to say -- The Cenozoic Era, meaning "new life" from the Greek is the most recent _____- 
Under Techtonics, Geologically is used (if I'm not mistaken -it's been years) adverbally but links to Geology as a noun which does not elucidate on the (?) adverbial usage. The is no reason to include the word. It would be just as well to say -- The Cenozoic is the era when the continents moved into their present position -- and leave out geologically altogether.
misdirections, this page.  No it isn't confusing nor should it be. This apparent contradiction is common in the literature where charts "young" going up and texts progress from older to younger in the "opposite direction". No problem here.
 
tense trivia  not all that important. Leave it for the original writer or follow the earlier theme.
 
On the "Geo-time box", I agee, the box information in the footer is ample.
user:J.H.McDonnell 2/16/09  —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: miscellany

message: My understanding (unreferenced like the mention in the article) of the cooling from the K-T impact was that it was on the order of a few years, and therefore not significant when considering geological time such as this? I would suggest removing that line. GBM (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too - zapped it. Awickert (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  K-T impact - cooling significance 

message: Along with my comment on Talk:Neogene, I think the the infobox at top right should have Neogene end at the Plio/Pleistocene boundary, and Quaternary take over, as per the ICS definition. This would also bring it into line with the article Geologic time-scale. Any thoughts? Awickert (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaternary 

message: This is a basic problem with the article.  Because all reference to the Tertiary has been purged it is needlessly confusing to those who learned the earlier terms describing this era.  ~~gpurcell  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.242.201 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the two periods of the cenozoic era 

message: Surely the alternative spellings Kainozoic and Cainozoic imply an alternative pronunciation beginning with a /k/ rather than /s/ sound? Booshank (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. Pterre (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: There are no references in the Life section. The information in this section should be sourced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbh28 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are no references in the Life section. 

message: According to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event page, K-T is an old terminology and K-Pg is the new one.  This article uses both and I would suggest to use only K-Pg, as well as "Cretaceous–Paleogene" instead of "Cretaceous–Tertiary".
--Moscoh (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform use of K-Pg 

message: I propose that Cainozoic be merged into Cenozoic. Cainozoic seems to be a duplicate of this page only with less information. Given it's just an alternate spelling I don't think it should have a separate page, but rather a redirect to this page.
:The two are the same page. Cainozoic is a redirect to Cenozoic. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me  00:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: "...leaving Cro Magnons and Homo sapiens as inheritors of the earth." This is rather an unscientific statement. Bacteria and other unicellular life remain the most important by [| biomass]; insects continue to dominate multicelled life by number of species. Is there a less dated, human-centric way to phrase this?
Jperrylsu (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed that last bit, not only because of the language, but also it wasn't supported by the cited source and treated cro-magnons as if they weren't homo sapiens. Mikenorton (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unscientific statement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cenozoic. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225011508/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/pliocene.html to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/pliocene.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The hypothesis that the Himalayan mountains rising led to lower global temps was a long-time hard-to-verify hypothesis that has recently been disproven: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087742
If it remains in the article, it should have some citation of evidence, or at least state that "Some have hypothesized that..." Father-science (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is about the Arabian and South China Seas between 16 and 5 million years ago. Far better evidence would be needed to refute a hypothesis about the cause of global cooling over the last 50 million years. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himalayan-caused global cooling has been refuted