Talk:Cretaceous

message: I'm not sure that Polar forests of the Cretaceous and South Polar region of the Cretaceous warrant being separate from the main Cretaceous article, and would be better served by being a subsection, akin to Paleocene#Polar forests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I always thought it's odd how Polar forests of the Cretaceous was split off instead of a more general Polar forest, or South Polar region of the Cretaceous instead of a more general Paleontology of the South Pole/Paleontology of the South Polar region   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Support for the reasons already put forward. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Oppose Sufficiently sourced to establish notability, instead of becoming a footnote in a larger article. Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This isn't an AfD, we aren't going off notability here, "sufficiently sourced" is not an argument for notability regardless, as none of the refs actually establish "South Polar Region of the Cretaceous" or "Polar forests of the Cretaceous" as a notable topic. South Polar Region of the Cretaceous failed GA because it had an "unclear scope". Both articles have a lot of overlap with each other and repeat the same talking points as in the main Cretaceous article. The Cretaceous article will invariably be a much longer article than Paleocene because there is much more to discuss. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

text: oppose - the Cretaceous is such a long and dynamic period that useful information gets lost by including it into Cretaceous, which will only become larger, the South Polar dinosaurs are notable by itself and the article, though not GA, is good enough to have separately. And all the hard work by the authors becomes lost in the already too big Cretaceous article. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   The Cretaceous article is no where near long enough, it totally omits major geologic events like the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary etc. I've spent the last few weeks quadrupling the size of the Jurassic article and there's still a significant amount to do. Arguably the Cretaceous article should really be several hundred thousand bytes in size given its scope, but currently its only a fraction of that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, I followed your comments about the Cretaceous. So by including an already long and complete article about a well-defined region would expand the article even more crazily. That is why we have these sub-articles, not? To include a short summary in Cretaceous with a reference to Main article. I don't think it is a good idea to include all the subsets of the Cretaceous in that article. The South Polar one is good by itself, just a short paragraph in Cretaceous is then enough. Same for the C-T boundary (main article separate, short summary in the main Cretaceous article, of which I have added several formations as support. Same for the Aptian and Albian anoxic events. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that the "South Polar Region of the Cretaceous" is poorly defined, confusing the south pole of Gondwana with "East Gondwana" which includes India and Madagascar, which are not discussed in the article at all. The article also covers the Jurassic, which is out of scope for the Cretaceous, and the Northern Australia region, which was subtropical and therefore not "polar". The article was failed in a GA review partly because of this. I could see the article being reformatted into a Paleontology of the South Polar Region article with a broader scope, as  suggested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with a short inclusion of info about the previous period and the connected paleogeography of northern Australia, that makes sense if it is short. The scope of that name is very different; now it is also about the paleoclimate and oceanography, not only focusing on the fossils. I see a bigger issue with "Paleontology of ...." because we have no other article like that and it shifts the focus from the geographical region to the paleontology alone. The South Polar article can be improved for sure, but rearranging it into essentially the opposite (paleo first, then the region instead of what we have now) means a lot more work too, on top of the inverted scope.
Maybe even the Cretaceous should be short and focus on Early and Late Cretaceous separately. The paleodiversity of the Campanian-Maastrichtian is so different from say the Valanginian. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  One could also say that "we have no other article like that" about "South Polar Region of the Cretaceous", given its unusual (and arguably poorly defined) scope compared to other articles. "Polar forests of the Cretaceous" feels like content that should be merged somewhere, even if not the Cretaceous article, as it currently feels like a WP:COATRACK of vaguely related information that is poorly structured. The problem with focusing on Early Cretaceous and Late Cretaceous is is that the Cretaceous article gets around 1,400 views per day while Early Cretaceous and Late Cretaceous get ~115 and ~220 average views per day respectively. It doesn't make sense from a viewership perspective to focus on those articles when they get collectively less than 1/4 of the views the Cretaceous article gets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Surprised to see no article nor redirect when entering "Weissert Event" in search, as it seems to be current term for an Early Cretaceous geological event, and usually Wiki is completely on top of this stuff. So, I suggest either a section here, or a stand alone article or both if it merits it. I don't know much about it, which is why I went looking, but what I've seen so far is "driven by large, sustained volcanic eruptions in the Southern Hemisphere", and discussed here (which I haven't read yet}: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25706-0 .Wiki geology, have at it! 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:C5BC:8C6C:B674:AB75 (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weissert Event