Talk:Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event

Requested move 24 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This RM was, fundamentally, a question of scope: participants debated whether the term Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event was used as synecdoche to describe the full range of extinction events during this period, and whether it would make for a better title to explicitly zoom out from the TOAE. This debate featured two sides of comparable strength, neither of which seemed to convince the other of their viewpoint, leading to a no-consensus result. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event → Early Toarcian extinction event – This article has, since its earliest days, discussed the smaller PTo-E pulse of the broader Toarcian extinction, and thus titling it the TOAE is less appropriate than titling it the Early Toarcian extinction. Furthermore, as stated in this article the TOAE technically refers strictly to the oceanic anoxic event, not the hyperthermal, the ocean acidification, and the myriad of other Earth system changes associated with this time, all of which this article extensively covers.

@Hemiauchenia reverted my edit and suggested having two separate articles, one about the TOAE strictly and the other about the broader extinction event, but this would be incredibly redundant, as the TOAE, though not the only pulse, was by far the most significant. Furthermore, many sites aren't precisely constrained enough to clearly distinguish the PTo-E and TOAE, and the extinctions of certain clades aren't necessarily constrainable to one or the other pulse. And most studies, with a rare exception, find both these events to share the common driver of Karoo-Ferrar volcanism. Two separate articles would just generate confusion and have a very high degree of overlap anyway with zero benefit. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: This comment was originally placed at Talk:Early Toarcian extinction event, but I moved a copy here per the formatting requirements of move requests. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC

• Comment "Early Toarcian extinction event" has 156 uses on scholar ("Toarcian extinction event" has 302), while "Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event" has 2,510 uses. Their scopes are somewhat different, but this is something worth keeping in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  The reasons behind this are that the TOAE is the biggest pulse, has been known of for much longer, and is universally reflected in the isotopic record, so most studies focus specifically on it and just say “TOAE”. Additionally, plenty of fields (geochemistry, sedimentology, petroleum geology) are entirely or primarily interested in the anoxic event itself (strictly the TOAE) and the broader biospheric and Earth system effects are not their focus.

  That a specific aspect of the broader concept gets more attention than the broader concept is IMO a poor rationale for titling a page that is already about the broader event with the more famous specific aspect of said event. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective of the Reolid et al. (2021) review, the the geological, climatic and biological events of the late Pliesbachian and early Toarcian are inseparably linked. We should treat it the same as any other pairing of extinction and anoxia pulse(s) (such as the Hangenberg Event) by going to the most cited term for the crisis interval. By stating "The Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event (TOAE), also known as the Jenkyns Event" in the article lede, we are explicitly following the common sensu lato interpretation which blends both terms together. Even the Reolid review also uses the phrase "The Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event, also known as the Jenkyns Event" in the abstract. The distinction between sensu stricto and sensu lato uses of the phrase TOAE are very real, but do not compromise the article title even though they're worth mentioning. Same with any article with sensu stricto and sensu lato definitions (Tetrapod, Reptile, Bird): we prioritize the more common usage in most situations while also discussing the less common usage in a few specific areas. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Reolid et. al. 2021 article I linked gave two separate definitions of the "Jenkyns Event" differing in breadth, the stricter one simply synonymised it with the TOAE and the more liberal one used it as an all-encompassing term for the whole Early Toarcian crisis. As far as I can tell, it gave two separate definitions of the Jenkyns Event, not two for the TOAE, and did not suggest that "TOAE" can also be used as a catch-all for the whole Early Toarcian crisis. And even if it did, to avoid confusion over its sensu stricto and sensu lato differences, it's only sensible a broader, unmistakable term ought to be used. Especially given that the article discusses events like the PTo-E that are explicitly defined as separate from the TOAE but cannot be disentangled from the broader Early Toarcian extinction. In much the same way that the Hirnantian OAE (HOAE) is discussed under the broader Late Ordovician mass extinction, or the way OAE-C1 and OAE-C2 are discussed under the broader end-Capitanian mass extinction. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fanboyphilosopher And furthermore, anyone who searches up the more cited term "Toarcian Oceanic Anoxic Event" will still be able to find this article that is mostly (but not exclusively) about the TOAE, even if it is titled differently. I fail to see the issue with using a broader but less cited term if it makes a more accurate and/or less ambiguous title and would minimise confusion for a novice reader that would be confused by and unfamiliar with the distinction in sensu stricto and sensu lato uses of the term.

Because it is objectively more accurate and less ambiguous to title this page, whose scope has always been the general Toarcian crisis and not strictly its main pulse, the "Early Toarcian extinction event" or the "Toarcian turnover" (which is what the page was originally called before it was deleted). That the term "TOAE" is more cited than the terms above is a testament to the specific, narrow scope of most studies on that particular anoxic event and to the fact that the other pulse(s) that is/are explicitly distinct from it is/are less studied. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2023 (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.

Procedure after no consensus on title change

Hemiauchenia Fanboyphilosopher The Wikipaedia guidelines on if and when a change on which there is "no consensus" should go through are not super clear and are rather open to interpretation.

Regardless of how this topic should be presented by Wikipaedia, as it stands right now, this page discusses the events of the broader Toarcian crisis and not solely the TOAE, and until a consensus is reached, the title should reflect that, IMHO. Though given the contentiousness of unilateral moves that I'd previously been unaware of, I'd like to still discuss this first.

And if a consensus is reached about whether to make separate articles about the TOAE and Early Toarcian extinction event (ETEE), speaking as the nearly-sole author of this entire article, it would be significantly less time-consuming to make this already-existing article the ETTM page and then split a TOAE-specific article off of it than the reverse that Hemiauchenia proposed.Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would try making posts at WT:PALEO and WT:GEOLOGY to try to get some more outside input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best to see perspectives beyond our small sample. In any case I would argue that it's best to have one article, regardless of the name applied to the crisis interval. As for what name is most acceptable, I've stated the extent of my interpretation and I do not have much more to add. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for continuing to haggle on this, but I think the interpretation you gave is a misunderstanding of the article and the terminology. Reolid et. al. 2021 gave two different uses of the term “Jenkyns Event”, not the term “TOAE”, which it explicitly defines as the anoxic event itself and not the wider extinction event. The sensu lato interpretation of the TOAE that you describe doesn’t actually exist as far as I can tell; all the articles that discuss other pulses like the PTo-E and the Variabilis Event explicitly distinguish those pulses from the TOAE. For the broader crisis, “Toarcian extinction” is the more common, unambiguous term; I’ve not seen a single paper in the course of my research and authorship of this article saying “TOAE” can be used to refer to the wider extinction event. However “common” the term “TOAE” is, it’s downright inaccurate and misleading to use it for the wider extinction event. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)