Talk:History of Earth/Archive 1

message: Knowledge seeker, to follow up a discussion started at History of the World and my talk page, I think this article is a good idea. It seems to be a natural history of the earth, which is different from a historians approach which deals with history and its impact of humans (although such history can be more inclusive than just the past few million years as Big History shows). I'm suprised a natural history of the earth doesnt exist on wikipedia, but looking at Earth, I dont see it.--Stbalbach 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Yeah, I was surprised too not to find something like this on Wikipedia—the closest thing is the timeline of evolution but I wanted something more descriptive than that. It's going to be tough to keep this article from growing out of control, but I look forward to the challenge. I'll be away for a few days but will resume work on the article when I return. Knowledge Seeker 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The number given in the moon section (4.553 x 109 years ago) seems at odds with the number given in the introduction (4.55 x 109 years ago).  Isn't 4.533 x 109 farther in the past than 4.55 x 109?
—ZorkFox (Talk) 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, ZorkFox—I am happy I am slowly drawing people into this article! You're absolutely right; it is my error, although I see I'm not the only one to do it—your question itself suggests the answer! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I made a typo (I meant to type 4.553 instead of 4.533), but am glad I was able to help, even while making an error.  :) —ZorkFox (Talk) 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it helped that you made the same typographical error that I did! Glad you caught it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moon discrepancy

message: In reponse to Puffball's very kind "Knowledge Seeker দ is the author of the article; I just worked on the prose. — Puffball 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: My only objection to the ref system is the way the superscript mucks up line spacing -- looks a bit ugly. Also if you do in-line references you can have wikilinks like the one to Tudge. Arguably in-line is less distracting and thus speeds up the reading process. But I'm easy about it; any way will do as long as the info is there! -- Puffball 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize it interfered with the line spacing—perhaps it's different on different browsers. (I used them more extensively at Metolazone, and I didn't notice any difficulties.) But if you prefer, using inline citations is fine with me. I'll switch it back. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Safari (Mac) and the displacement is quite noticeable. Thanks for the rv. -- Puffball 09:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I invited editors from History of the world to assist us; please feel free to invite others as you see fit. In writing this article I have attempted to summarize events from the formation of Earth to the present time. Given humanity's brief stint on the planet, I didn't want to devote too much space to human history, yet so much has happened in that little time that it merited at least a few paragraphs. These sections are the weakest in my opinion, especially for two reasons: One, my grasp of history is weaker than my grasp of other areas. And two, it is extremely difficult to summarize so much information. Obviously, most information could not be included. I tried to focus on the very major events, with emphasis on global matters and those that affect the planet, since this is a history of Earth after all. If you feel there is important material lacking or that too much has been devoted to a less-important topic, please change it or comment here. Feel free to rewrite the sections. We'd definitely appreciate the assistance. Other comments are welcome as well. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right; looks like no one's interested—and one editor told me he thought the article should be deleted. Oh well, looks like we're on our own for this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human history 

message: I think the anno Domini calendar should be used either in unison with the euphemistic common era or replace it altogether on this page. The Jesus article uses both (i.e. 45 BC/BCE). This article is one of historic importance and should reflect all cultures and traditions. This article should not have a secular bias or a Christian racism slant. Please discuss and vote. –Darwiner111 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. This article has nothing to do with Christianity; the only tradition it should reflect is the scientific one. It may discuss culture but it should not reflect it. I do not know what a Christian racism slant is, but racists from any religion aren't really relevant here. I don't know exactly what you mean by "secular bias"; Merriam-Webster defines secular as follows: "1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>." If this is the definition you are using, then I absolutely feel that the article should 1) relate to the worldly or temporal, 2) should not be overtly or specifically religious, and 3) should not be ecclesiastical or clerical. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I also disagree.  Though it is my own personal habit to use BC/AD, and even though it is my preference to see dates in this format, I think we should leave it in the BC/BCE format.  It's obviously not necessary to cater to my habits.  I don't really like how "Before Common Era" rolls off the tongue, but hey... no one ever consults me on these important notation changes.  :)  Knowledge Seeker is correct that the article should discuss culture, but not reflect it.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually usually use BC/AD too. In fact, I never gave it much thought until recently, but the campaign to infuse religious terminology that he's been carrying out (involving some highly questionable practices) has turned me off of it. And with a fundamental article like this, whose scope is so far beyond human systems, it somehow seemed more appropriate to use BCE/CE. In any case, I don't consider the issue important enough to merit further discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian calendar 

message: I'm having major problems with my ISP and may be offline for extended periods. Even when I can get online (they control my phones as well) I'll be using dialup. Puffball 09:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem; you’re certainly not obligated to contribute. We’ll look forward to your return! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- the problems are getting worse (we won't go into it). In fact, computers and the internet are beginning to drive me nuts! Puffball 09:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved Puffball 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry if I'm not contributing 

message: I'm just putting this here because it was too long for the edit summary.  I think Big Bang should be capitalized.  It is a named event, like World War II, and not just any old large explosion.  In my opinion, and despite my usual respect for it, www.m-w.com is in error with its lower case entry.  Wikipedia uses Big Bang.  (I know, it's a minor quibble.  :)—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam-Webster is my dictionary of choice, but of course I'm open to other ones as well. Are there any dictionaries that capitalize it? I would like to check the OED, but I don't have a copy. As much as I love Wikipedia, I would never use it as a spelling authority over Merriam-Webster or other reputable dictionaries, and I definitely don't think that Wikipedia should be creating its own capitalization style, even if it seems logical to Wikipedians. I'm happy to keep it uppercase if other authorities recommend capitalization. NASA's website appears to be inconsistent. I'll check Chicago when I get home, but I don't recall it being mentioned there. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself have become confused.  I made the change while at work, and thus without access to my many dictionaries.  Two of my dictionaries have the term, two don't (one because it's lame and cheap, the other because it's very old).  Of my two dictionaries that have the term, Meriam-Webster uses lower case, and Random House uses upper case.  I'm happy to go either way, I guess, as I consider Meriam-Webster to have more authority than Random House.  :)—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that it should be capitalized, whatever the OED says. ZorkFox (ষTalk) is surely right in his first paragraph. Puffball 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit uneasy with us creating our own capitalization rules on Wikipedia. I don't mind the capitalized version being used, but I'd be a lot more at ease if a major dictionary or style guide supported it, since my usual references say not to do so. Can anyone find such a reference? Even if we don't like the way dictionaries spell words, I don't think we should be using our own spelling—even if we think that's how it should be spelt. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a silly thing to worry so much about, so let's just make a decision.  I suggest that, since Meriam-Webster is, by and large, one of those dictionaries to which scholars pay attention (the others being Funk & Wagnall's, and Barnhart's World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary), I think we should go with what it says.  I.e. lower-case.  Far be it from me to contravene the normal decorum of the village with my upstart miscreant ideas.  Heh!  :)—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 11:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I leave it to you guys to decide how you would like to leave it. This issue is less clear and much less important to me than the quotation marks below. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lower-case seems to prevail (though really I feel it shouldn't). ZorkFox, be bold! Be as miscreative as you like! -- Puffball 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang 

message: First, I wanted to really thank everyone who has been working on this article. I think it has really turned out well so far, and I'm pretty happy with the balance between sufficient detail and brevity. I think it's short enough to read through in one sitting. Also, the article has drawn praise from several editors. You can see some comments on my talk page, but we all share in deserving the compliments. I think it's an article to be proud of and I've made links to it from several articles—feel free to add any wherever you see fit (I don't want to spam other articles, of course). I've been working on adding references—the sections up to the origin of life should be well-referenced now. Of course, if you find additional or more rigorous references, please list them—I'm only an amateur and may not be familiar with the best literature or evidence. Also, I'm having trouble with the title of section 3: I'm currently using "The first millennium" but if anyone has a better suggestion, let's hear it. Obviously, the major task still facing the article is the continued addition of references. Also, as mentioned before, I'm still not thrilled with the human history section, though that may be unavoidable given the incredible amount of material that must be condensed. We should start thinking about submission for peer review at some point to help us define what directions to seek improvement in. I'm not sure where else to go from here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help with the citation markup, KS.  I hyperlinked it to the original paper on the ScienceDirect website with the DOI which (in theory) should never result in a broken link, and gives the abstract to nonsubscribers for free.  The data in the Cavosie paper seems to agree with the 4.2 Ga for the presence of relatively cool water on earth.Rickert 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the much more authoritative reference, Rickert. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. If you need to change any of the chronology, go ahead—I'll recalculate the "clock times" later. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current tasks 

message: I love Unicode as much as the next person, possibly more than average, but it is not, unfortunately, supported very well.  It's OK to use it for symbols people won't be using to search a document, like "—" and "×", but when we uses it for apostrophes and quotation marks, those are harder to deal with.  For example, you can't search for "Artist's", you have to search for "Artist’s" ...which involves either finding a character somewhere to cut-and-paste, or knowing that Alt+0146 (on a Windows machine) will get you the curly/angled/whatever version.  It is especially confusing depending on the font in use; on Wikipedia, the font doesn't make a distinction, and so even though you use "’" it still shows up as "'". (There appears to be a miniscule difference in the white space around each character, but casual persons cannot be expected to notice this outside carefully controlled contexts, as in those created by placing the characters between quotation marks.) Also, if used in wikilinks, the Unicode characters won't work.  I think the apostrophe and quotation marks are too common to replace with Unicode characters and should be put back, so I did it.  :)—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 10:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, I very much disagree. I very much feel we should use apostrophes and quotation marks instead of single and double primes. The benefit of using proper typography outweighs the benefit of improved searching, which I feel is marginal—very few will be searching with quotation marks, and not many with apostrophes. The difference is quite noticeable on my computer and in print, and I don't think that just because it doesn't show up on some platforms it should not be used. Wikipedia has switched to Unicode support some time ago, and I think it can be expected that browsers will support Unicode. Writers shouldn't feel obligated to use the Unicode symbols, but I don't see why those who wish to should be prevented from doing so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a chestnut at the Manual of Style. The consensus there generally seems to be against Unicode. -- Puffball 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've seen the scattered discussions, and I disagree with them. I think issues like this are part of the reason the Manual of Style gets less significance these days. In any case I'm not advocating making a preference for Unicode part of the Manual of Style, but allow it either way, such as -- vs. —. In my opinion, searching for terms like "artist's" isn't really very compelling. In the first place, no one will be searching for quotation marks. In the second, many browsers search as you type; I don't know what IE does, but Firefox does. And if someone was searching for such a term, they would likely search for "artist" if the "artist's" search fails. All in all, it does not seem to me to be a good reason for not using proper typography. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a look at the discussion to which you linked. It seems to be more concerned with forcing general usage of quotation marks and software implentations for automatically converting primes to quotation marks. Obviously, those topics aren't relevant here. A concern over mixed styles in an article is brought up. While it is certainly a concern, as ZorkFox points out, many people cannot see the difference; in addition, since it is very important to me that this article look beautiful, you can be sure I will keep it consistent. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am overruled, then by all means return to the Unicode punctuation marks.  I still think it isn't supported very well; it's only by chance that I happen to have the Arial Unicode MS font on my machine (which, incidentally, allows me to see the Bengali script characters used by Knowledge Seeker and myself in our signatures).  This font is not generally available for download (though it used to be) and only comes with certain Microsoft products these days.  The difference is more apparent in the editing window than on the article page in my browser (latest Firefox on Windows 2000 Professional).  What settings and/or software are you using, KS?—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 00:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps "overruled" was a poor choice of words.  :)  I, too, use the typographically correct characters on my Web page, but the font family I use (Verdana, sans-serif) makes fairly clear distinctions between the "'" and the "’".  Other software (i.e. not browsers) do not seem to handle such characters too well (in my experience), but I guess we can't worry about them or we'll never get anything accomplished.  Heh.  I apologize if I overreacted by reverting the changes, and will be happy to put them back in place if that's the consensus.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly did not overreact. What software, aside from browsers, might people use in conjunction with this article? The only ones I can think of are programs like Notepad or Microsoft Word and both support Unicode. I guess I didn't think about people using programs aside from browsers on the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unicode support depends mostly on the fonts a piece of software can or will display.  Notepad will let you input Unicode characters, but they'll just show up as blocks (at least, this is the case on my version of Notepad; I don't know what changes, if any, might have been made to it in XP).  Wordpad will display some/all Unicode characters depending on which font you select for the document.  Personally, I think the Unicode quotation marks look much better, but they are harder to produce for the average user (even the average user who knows how to use the "Insert [a character]" table at the bottom of an edit page) and are not, in general, in use on the rest of Wikipedia.  I would find them irksome to use in everyday life (or everyday editing, as may be the case).—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 04:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Unicode works fine in Notepad and Microsoft Word on Windows XP. I wouldn't expect the average user to be obligated to use Unicode quotation marks any more than I'd expect them to use Unicode dashes. If necessary, editors watching the article (like me) can fix those, as well as spelling mistakes, misplaced commas, and so on. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode usage 

message: I originally linked "BCE" to Common Era, since Before Common Era (which BCE stands for) redirects to Common Era. This seems logical to me; readers wishing more information about "BCE" will find that best in Common Era, and links should go to the most specific target, in my opinion. Another editor feels it should link to Gregorian calendar. I think it makes just as little sense as linking to Calendar or Time. What do others think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "BCE" does not neccesarily stand for "Before Common Era", even though this is the most commonly used. Many interpret "CE/BCE" as Christian Era, even the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which defines CE as "Christian era– dating from the birth of Jesus Christ". Though linking to "Before Christ" would be inappropriate, linking to "Before Common Era" is no more appropriate given the wide appreciation that "CE" stands for Christian era as well. Linking to Gregorian calendar would also give NPOV on the era debate, and I think Gregorian calendar is certainly appropriate since "BCE" is directly associated with it. CrazyInSane 02:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not being clear. When I wrote that section, I was using BCE to stand for "Before Common Era"—that other interpretations are possible does not mean that linking to a different article is appropriate, anymore than a link to BCE would be appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the fact that you are willing to discuss the matter prior to reverting my edits, and I made my edit simply to assert NPOV with the "BCE" link. I figured that the link "Gregorian calendar" ensures that you aren't asserting a strictly Christian nor secular point of view, however if you restore the "Before Common Era" link it's ultimately your call. CrazyInSane 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I saw that you removed the link to Common Era. I feel that it is appropriate and logical for an abbreviation to link to its expanded phrase the first time it is used in an article, and so restored it. I am not willing to be so bound by fear of not being politically correct that I use a vague and inferior article link rather than pick a format. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[BCE]] link target?

message: My understanding of the use of stratigraphic names is that the terms like period, stage, eon etc. should be capitalized.  This is a geological convention.  For example, see . Rickert 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to stay out of this one—I feel like I've been making a big deal out of minor style issues recently. Merriam-Webster doesn't use any capitalization in its entry. But the reason I originally used lowercase when I wrote the heading was based on The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.), which is my style manual of choice. It suggests the following in chapter 8 (Names and Terms), section Scientific Terminology: Geological Terms: "8.143 What to capitalize. Formal geological terms are capitalized; informal  terms are not. The generic terms eon, era, and the like are lowercased or omittted immediately following a formal name. Eons are divided into eras, eras into periods, periods into epochs, and epochs into stages." The following examples are given: "the Archean (eon), the Mesoproterozoic (era), the Paleozoic (period), the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic, and the Paleocene (epoch)". It also refers writers to the U.S. Geological Survey, Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey, and Scientific Style and Format for more detailed guidelines. Therefore, my preference is not to capitalize. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that the "official" scientific body (the NACSN) and the bible (the NASC) on stratigraphic nomenclature in North America recommends the capitalization.  To a certain extent, this convention is followed in the literature, although with abundant exception.  I believe that if pressed, most geologists who have thought about this issue would agree that it should be capitalized.  It seems funny to me to use a lower case in this context, however you have used equally relevent sources, and more importantly, consensus seems to be against me.  It would seem that I will simply have to wince every time I read it.  ;)  Rickert 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a tendency for people in all fields to overcapitalize terms that are important to them. Nevertheless, I don't really have a strong opinion in this case, and if you feel that this term should be capitalized, feel free to change it. Others too are welcome to comment here. Of course, other editors in the future may see the capitalized version and change it to lowercase. I wonder if it would be simpler just to use "The Hadean" as title. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as someone has a good reason (like you do) I am fine with either.  Although your suggestion to change it to just "The Hadean" sounds a tad more poetic.  :)  Rickert 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "The Hadean". Eon was a bit redundant, anyway. I think this will work best; others are free to comment if they like. By the way, my comment above about "people in all fields" was a generic reference; I hope I didn't come across as implying anything about you specifically. Anything else you can offer to improve the section? I am happy with the referencing but additional references or better-quality sources are always welcome. I'm slowly making my way through, trying to add references throughout the article. Hopefully we'll be ready for peer review soon and they can offer us further suggestions on how to improve the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well resolved. :) Sammysam 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadean Eon vs. Hadean eon 

message: The sections on origin of life (beginnings of life the the first cell) don't line up too well with the origin of life article; it privileges one theory in a field where there is by no means a consensus, and claims that for the random emergence of a replicator from "organic soup", the "broad principles have been quite well established" - dubious at best.--ragesoss 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I intended the organic chemistry scenario only as illustration, but now that I reread it, it does get undue prominence. I tried to rewrite it—what do you think? Incidentally, I don't care that much for the origin of life article; it seems a bit disorganized to me, but perhaps I just have a short attention span. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better.  It's still kind of misleading at the beginning, with the "broad principles" line; yes, the broad principles of how a first replicator might have arisen are established, but it also seems like the article is saying that that form of origin is well-established, as opposed to exogenesis or panspermia, etc.  And, no, I don't care much for the origin of life article either (although I suppose the randomness, a sort of "hypothesis soup", is symbolically fitting).--ragesoss 16:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, the point is well-taken. I didn't mention panspermia or exogenesis since obviously there is limited space here and it seemed to me that they carry minority positions in science currently. Perhaps, though, I should mention the possibility of life or organic chemicals arriving from space. I am confused, though; my understanding of panspermia and exogenesis was that life arose in those scenarios in the same manner of a replicator arising, then gradually becoming more complex through evolution (obviously this doesn't apply in the version of panspermia where life always existed); isn't that still how life is believed to have originated, whether on Earth or elsewhere (or both)? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of Life

message: When I'm using the same source as a reference for several points, I can use the page number, but then multiple nearly identical versions of the footnote appear in the references. Alternatively, I could use one footnote text for all of them, which would make for neater footnoting, but then the reader would not have a page number to use if he wished to verify or learn more about the assertion. Do the other editors have a preference which way I should continue referencing? For now I'll continue to use page numbers; it will be quite easy to remove them later should we so choose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the use of pages is a good idea as long as the section doesn't become bloated with them.  It's good to cite sources and make sure your facts are correct, but I think there's a point where the gain in knowledge is outweighed by the minutia.  Good work linking to that story about the data from WMAP; that's an important discovery.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the references I suggest you take a look at  and . Joelito 13:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I'll try using them. I hope they don't clutter up the wikitext even more, though. Hopefully it will make it neater. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so: one or more references per paragraph should be standard. Great work. bcasterline t 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but History of Earth#Beginnings of life, which I was working on yesterday, already has 6 references. The following paragraph already has 3. At what point should I stop? I mean, I could add references to each sentence, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a medical study. Well, I'll move on to some of the paragraphs that I haven't referenced yet, and can come back to these if necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are long paragraphs, so, personally, I don't think that's overkill at all.  As WP:V says, articles should cite sources whenever possible. More or less any fact that isn't taken for granted (e.g. "Modern taxonomy classifies life into three domains.") should be referenced somehow.  Look at some of the current FA and FACs, such as AIDS, which footnotes an enormous number of different sources, or Sassanid Empire, which footnotes many different pages of the same source, as you have (but differently). bcasterline t 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, I didn't realize how many references AIDS had. Well, I'll continue trying to reference as much as possible, then. And I suppose this article may need more referencing than most, because I've had to pull so much information from so many fields and pack into tiny sections; naturally, it is a bit more information-dense than an average article. Thanks for the feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just to clarify, I meant "Modern taxonomy classifies life into three domains." as an example of a basic fact that I think probably doesn't need to be footnoted.  Verifiability is important, but that probably would be excessive :-) bcasterline t 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References question 

message: how about adding a session of a possible future
Mateus Zica 07:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting to consider, but we have to be careful not to speculate too much about future events; this borders on original research. While I'm comfortable with suggesting that humans may colonize other planets (which I consider relevant in an article on the history of a planet), it's been deliberately left quite vague. See also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While a section covering various sourced speculations on Earth's future might be appropriate, I fear it would be too difficult to summarize them or to find common themes, and it seems to me that the future is just too uncertain to write a strong paragraph. Perhaps if a good Future of Earth article existed (I tried variations but could not locate an article, though I thought there was a similar one somewhere), that could be used as a basis. But as I'm seeing such a section, I think it would be too vague and too speculative—it would weaken the ending of the article, in my opinion. If someone were to write Future of Earth, I'd be happy to add it as a see also link at least. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: End of civilization is something like a Future of Earth article.  But I don't think speculation about the future belongs in a chronicle of the past. bcasterline t 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Do you think it would be helpful in the "See also" section? It is a related topic. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  future 

message: Does anyone know of a good source with an approximate time for when LUCA lived? I need to rewrite those sentences a bit but I'm trying to find a nice citation, and this one's giving me a little trouble. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUCA reference 

message: I'm still not happy with the way the article treats billions (and yes, I know, I'm the one who wrote it that way). Various options include "4.5 billion years ago", "4.5 thousand million years ago", "4.5×109 years ago", "4,500,000,000 years ago", "4.5 Bya" (or "4500 Mya"), "4.5 Ga" (or "4500 Ma"), and "4500 Myr". Obviously, the first instance must explain the notation. I realize "billion" can have different meanings, but I think perhaps it would be the most straightforward. The first instance could include an alternate form such as "4,500,000,000 years ago" the way the article does currently. The other option is to use strict SI units: "142 Ps" (petaseconds). Just kidding. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...perhaps I have scared away other editors with my overbearing control of the article. Increasingly I feel that using "billion" would be superior to the method I originally used. Any thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Billion has different usages, sometimes it means 10^9 sometimes (esp. in the UK) it means 10^12.  I honestly don't know how many people use it to mean 10^12, but that is part of the reason why geochronologists use "Ga" instead of billion.  My preference is "Ga", but from the above discussion it would seem that use of Ga would confuse some people.  If we could clarify how many people would be confused by "billion", and it were small, billion would probably suffice.  Rickert 06:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the differing uses of billion; that's the reason I initially selected 109 as a clear, unambiguous notation style. Yet I now feel it is too awkward. I understand that Ga is used in the geologic literature; is that correct? It is a logical abbreviation, yet it seems to me that it is not very intuitive nor well-established. The articles I've used as sources used a variety of abbreviations, such as Mya and Myr. It does appear that most use Ga, but I haven't seen this used in more popular literature (for instance, magazines like Scientific American). I would like this article to be accurate and precise, but I don't want it to be too inaccessible to readers, especially since this article spans such disparate fields. But I do think that Ga may be superior to 109, and I think billion is too. Other articles on Wikipedia seem to use billion for the most part, so at least for now I think I'll switch to that. Perpahs Ga would be even better; I am just concerned that if someone reads in the middle of the article they will be confused, especially since years play such a major role in the article. What do others think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of people likely to be confused by Ga is higher than the number of people likely to be confused by billion.  And anyone familiar with Ga as a measurement is almost certainly going to understand that billion is being used as 109 because nothing is 1012 years old.  Leaving it as 109 is a good compromise, but people unfamiliar with scientific notation won't have the same intuitive understanding of the number. It is less precise, but, especially since you use "million years ago", I think "billion years ago" is the most straightforward way to put it. bcasterline t 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a British citizen, billion is used only to refer to 10^9 in Britain. We Americanized the numerical convention decades ago. Jefffire 18:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then "billion" sounds fine to me.  Run with it.  Rickert 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Billion, to Spanish speakers (except Puerto Ricans), corresponds to 1012, but since this is the English Wikipedia I believe billion should be used as 109 since the majority of English speakers recognize it as so. Joelito 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Billion" revisited 

message: Nice article. Not sure I'd call Hinduism the earliest religion still practicesd - there are plenty of animists still out there, and Chinese religions have a pretty long history. PiCo 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! You're right. I modified it; I'll reword it later with a citation. Appreciate the feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism and earliest religion 

message: The Cambrian-Ordovician boundary is between 483+-1 Ma (Landing et al., 1997) and 489+-0.6 Ma (Landing et al., 2000).  The older date of 489 Ma is the one quoted in the timescale of Okulitch (2001).  The timescale of Gradstein et al. (2004; slightly newer), uses 488.3+-1.7, but I’m not sure where that data is from.  My suggestion would be to use the Landing et al. (2000) date and reference, as it is the primary source.  The Gradstein ref is secondary (i.e. it draws from published Geochron data like that in the Landing paper).  The Okulitch is secondary, but it directly references the Landing et al. (2000) date.
:Landing, E; Bowring, SA; Davidek, KL; Rushton, AWA; Fortey, RA; Wimbledon, WAP.  2000.  Cambrian-Ordovician boundary age and duration of the lowest Ordovician Tremadoc Series based on U-Pb zircon dates from Avalonian Wales.  Geological Magazine, v137 (5): 485-494.  doi: 10.1017/S0016756800004507
:Landing, E; Bowring, SA; Fortey, RA; Davidek, K, 1997.  U-Pb zircon date from Avalonian Cape Breton Island and geochronologic calibration of the Early Ordovician.  Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences v34, 724-730.
:Okulitch, AV, 2001.  Geological time scale, 2001.  Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3040 (National Earth Science Series, Geological Atlas) – Revision.
:F.M.Gradstein, J.G.Ogg, A.G.Smith, F.P.Agterberg, W.Bleeker, R.A.Cooper, V.Davydov, P.Gibbard, L.Hinnov, M.R. House, L.Lourens, H-P.Luterbacher, J.McArthur, M.J.Melchin, L.J.Robb, J.Shergold, M.Villeneuve,B.R.Wardlaw, J.Ali, H.Brinkhuis, F.J.Hilgen, J.Hooker, R.J.Howarth, A.H.Knoll, J.Laskar, S.Monechi, J.Powell,K.A.Plumb, I.Raffi, U.Röhl, A.Sanfilippo, B.Schmitz, N.J.Shackleton, G.A.Shields, H.Strauss, J.Van Dam, J.Veizer,Th.van Kolfschoten, and D.Wilson. 2004: A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, ~ 500 p. (NB I don’t know if I got this whole reference correct or not)
Rickert 09:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Rickert! That helps a lot! Now we've got good references for the timing of the event. All we need is a reference stating there was a major extinction event at the time...anybody? I'll keep searching. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction event is not a particularly large one, and not on the scale of the the end-Devonian, Ordovician-Silurian, Permo-Triassic, Triassic-Jurassic(?), or Cretaceous-Tertiary events (particularly the end-Permian extinction).  As a more positive comment, the fact that there IS a boundary between the Cambrian and Ordovician is probably a good clue to the fact that there was an extinction, because these boundaries are commonly placed at major faunal shifts.  That's the extent of my paleontological knowledge, BTW.  :) Rickert 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I added the appropriate references. I am fortunate to have your expertise in these matters. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camb-Ordo bndry 

message: A user removed the link from "BCE" with the comment "Wikipedia endorses NPOV as you and I know..endorsement the linking of BCE over any other term like 'the' is POV". The is not an abbreviation; BCE is. It is logical and traditional for abbreviations to be linked to the phrases for which they stand. I restored the link. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking "BCE" is endorsing it even further over the "Anno Domini" system, given that "BC/AD" alrady is ignored at this article. On every article where you see "AD" or "BC", they are never linked. And this is because they are so well known that nobody would want to visit the "anno Domini" link, plus it's completely irrelevent to the actual article material, as is here. As for "BCE", the only reason anyone (i.e. Knowledge_Seeker) would want to link it is to endorse its mainstream usage, as most people do not even know what it means thus a link would press them to investigate. I disagree with this and believe the link should be removed immediately. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are articles (for example, Belgium) that link to anno Domini. Yes, the purpose of links to other Wikipedia articles is for users wishing more information on that topic. I do not believe you've made a good case for removing the link. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are appreciated, KS, but remember that you do not own this article, despite the major additions you made here (and maybe you created it, of that I am unsure). Therefore I will await other user responses and remove the link if there is a consensus for such. I will refrain from removing it until a consensus, but I do believe it should be removed promptly. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Of course I don't own the article; you hardly need to remind me of Wikipedia policy and you will see my statement to that effect if you read the archives. Yes, I am responsible for writing the majority of the article; as you are aware, the initial primary author does get some leeway in setting the style tone for the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't assume Knowledge Seeker is making an endorsement. Linking BCE might be superfluous, but it's not inappropriate.  Same with linking measurements such as m, in, etc. You might consider linking the date as a whole (7000 BCE, for example, is more likely to be useful), but linking every date is probably excessive. bcasterline t 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with a linking of the date as a whole (i.e. 450 BCE) if that would be okay with KS. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE
To me this matter seems trivial and I adhere to the main contributor's desired style. Joelito 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that linking the whole date does make sense as well, although I do like having initialisms linked (the point is well taken, though, about the other measurements). I changed it back to that for now. I do wonder, though, what the point of only linking one or two dates in this manner is. If we're going to do it, shouldn't we do it to all the dates? Not that that's necessarily a good idea, either. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, BCE should be linked.  The best (only, IMO) argument against BCE is that it is less well known.  It's specifically because some people may be unfamiliar with the term that it should be linked.  We don't determine linking on the basis of Wiki-politics or policy - link things which might be unfamiliar to a reader reasonably familiar with English.  Guettarda 03:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The linking of "BCE" 

message: I haven't made much reference to geologic units of time, such as the Devonian period, the Mesozoic era, and so on. Do you think I should try to mention these more often? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling would be yes.  It's commonly used, so it makes it easier to mesh this with other sources.  Guettarda 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. I'll try to integrate them into the text. Please feel free to reword my awkward writing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geologic time scale? 

message: This precious wet droplet of lava orbiting a star. --arkuat (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Grain of dust is more like it! I recall reading somewhere that Isaac Asimov (an excellent writer) described the solar system as "a star, four planets, and debris", which I think is highly appropriate. The quote may be apocryphal though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh—they have them at least as often as droplets of lava do, I'd figure! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  random phrase 

message: Whew—only two paragraphs left to reference (79 footnotes so far!). Once I'm done I'd definitely like to invite some outside help. Wikipedia:Peer review is a logical choice. Also, there is the new Wikipedia:Scientific peer review, which is a very exciting project—I've been following their project with interest. I think they will be able to provide us with a lot of help, at least ensuring I haven't made any horrible scientific errors. Hopefully some of the reviewers will have expertise in the various fields this article discusses. I think that SPR will be more helpful than PR at this point, although PR will be important later on as we polish the article. So I guess I'm proposing to nominate the article for SPR once I get done with this phase of referencing. What do others think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think scientific peer review would be quite useful at this point and will invite them to help us improve. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approaching peer review