Talk:Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dragons flight: (rv, since T. pedum defines the boundary, your statement seems logically impossible. please provide a reference.)

T. Pedum defined the boundary when the boundary was set, at that exact locality. It has been found elsewhere (i.e. not at or near the GSSP, but at localities correlated 4m beneath it) since the golden spike was driven in, and thus is now unsuitable as a global indicator of the base of the Cambrian. Butterfield (who pointed this out to me) thus feels that the base of the Cambrian is poorly defined, and a bit meaningless anyway, and feels that it should really be moved to the start of the Tommotian (i.e. the base of the Cambrian Explosion), with the Ediacaran period included in the Proterozoic. But I digress. I've updated the main page with the reference (Burrowing below the basal Cambrian GSSP, Fortune Head, Newfoundland, Gehling et al. 2001). I still feel a different GSSP may be a better example... Verisimilus 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Minor Issue of Semantics

This is something small, but I believe that there is a problem with the phrase "A GSSP has to define the lower boundary of a geologic age." I think that GSSP's are used to define Chronostratigraphic units, not Geochronologic intervals (the difference is elegantly summarized by a table near the bottom of the page). In light of this, I propose that the above wording be changed to "A GSSP must define the lower boundary of a geologic system, series, or stage". If there are no objections I will make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsullivan742 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to mention "Type section"

Other articles refer to Type section, which then redirects here. But this article, the destination of that redirect, then fails to mention that phrase "type section". I suggested an edit for this but it was reverted. But a fix of some sort is needed. What should be done? Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Feline Hymnic: Hi! That is indeed a terrible redirect. (Edit: It was created in 2006 and at that time very reasonable. But we have a lot more geology coverage now) A GSSP is just a subclass/subset or a special kind of type section. Every lithostratigraphic unit has a type section. There are also type sections for regional time scales that are not part of the international time scale. We will have to do something about this. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias1984: Many thanks for your reply. I would help if I could, but my geology is now 35 years rusty! Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Feline Hymnic: I have to see when I have to for this. But in the mean if you want to remove the rust this is very concise: [1] --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias1984: Great! Thanks. For a very brief, and probably not very accurate, start, try Stratotype (and re-try Type section which now redirects to it). Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]