Talk:Uranium–lead dating

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Uranium–lead dating 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

RFD result

I resolved the discussion at RFD (listed 21 November 2005) as no consensus because the nominated reason isn't a criterion to delete redirects. Here is an archive of the discussion:

Uranium-lead dating → Radiometric dating -- All of the types of radiometric dating have their own articles or are red links, except this one (see "types of radiometric dating" in the radiometric dating article). The redirect should be deleted so that people will know that we don't have an article about it yet. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This page has a few incoming link and the redirect does seem useful to me since radiometric dating mentions uranium-lead dating, so I'll leave it to a more experienced admin to decide. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed entry from RFD and template from redirect. Demi ^T/_C 07:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New article needed

This topic needs to have its own article, but I'm not ready to write a stub from scratch that I'm sure won't get reverted right away. It will probably be a copy-paste-and-edit of the relevant paragraph(s) in radiometric dating, for people to expand upon. --arkuat (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make clear that I did not write the text of this article, I just copied it out of radiometric dating because I thought the subject needed its own article. See page history of radiometric dating for the origins of the text of this article. --arkuat (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Oppose merge. U-Pb is a distinct and important radiometric dating method and requires it's own page.Rickert 01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - more than enough material available on this important technique to develope a significant article. Vsmith 01:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endash

Doesnt U–Pb means a range, eg. from U to Pb and U-Pb means U and Pb? Christian75 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "1 million years" wording accurate?

I hope this is the right way to ask for attention to something--never done it before! At the start of this article it says that U-Pb dating can be used to date rocks that formed "from about 1 million years to over 4.5 billion years ago with routine precisions in the 0.1–1 percent range." Is 1 million too young? I was under the impression that accuracy for U-Pb was withing about 250,000 years, which is too large a percentage of 1 million. However, I'm not an expert. For example: ^[1] "In a paper published this week in Science, geochemist Roland Mundil of the Berkeley Geochronology Center (BGC) and his colleagues at BGC and UC Berkeley report that uranium/lead (U/Pb) dating can be extremely accurate - to within 250,000 years - but only if the zircons from volcanic ash used in the analysis are specially treated." Chonneyo (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a moving target as the science progresses, but one million years is about right for the current state of the field. It makes no sense to discuss the accuracy of this method in absolute terms. The 250,000 years mentioned in that press release is in reference to an age determination of around 250 Ma. It would make more sense to say that the determination is good to better than 0.1%. This is not going to be true for the youngest rocks, but in some cases it is possible to achieve similar precision for things that are under 1 Ma ^[2]. Stephencox (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/16_uranium.shtml
^ J.L. Crowley, B. Schoene, S.A. Bowring; U-Pb dating of zircon in the Bishop Tuff at the millennial scale. Geology 2007;; 35 (12): 1123–1126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G24017A.1

[1] ttps://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/09/16_uranium.shtml

[2] J.L. Crowley, B. Schoene, S.A. Bowring; U-Pb dating of zircon in the Bishop Tuff at the millennial scale. Geology 2007;; 35 (12): 1123–1126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1130/G24017A.1

[1]

[2]