Template talk:Geology to Paleobiology

current template

initial go round

Hi FrankB! Wouldn't it be clearer to just call the two columns "chronostratigraphic unit" and "geochronologic unit"? I find it a bit confusing in this way. By the way, there are more such units (magnetostratigraphy, lithostratigraphy and biostratigraphy all have their own system), so we could enhance this template a little too. Woodwalker (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, heh... you're asking me??? I'm the one that spotted that your field was not footing and tying such basic definitions up for the lay reader. Basically, I'm amazed the template survived and has remained valuable enough to even draw a fact tagging.

but since you have... re: Wouldn't it be clearer to just call the two columns "chronostratigraphic unit" and "geochronologic unit"?...

Not sure the lay reader would make the connection, but it has to be better than these overlong titles... so go fer it! // FrankB

fact tagging 2008-09-17ish

The language goes back to the revelation by Woodwalker about chrons and chronosomes, and et. al. (See his talk about the date that in fact lead to the development (changes) of this version.
I was trying to present the point WW made about certain strata that exist independent of the GSSP/GSSA benchmarks which are presumably "named" and familiar "Measures" in the earth sciences.
As I am very much a tyro in the field (and currently very very wiki-missing in RL), I would suggest you edit it so that you feel it is accurate as stated and phrased... and remove the fact ASAP.
Should be integrated with geologic record and geologic time scale in any event, and I would prefer the former be linked back in the template...
'it appears to have fallen a casualty to and been simplified out, whereas my feeling is a long article as IS the later, hides information when someone is but trying to get a sense of some statement three hyperlinks removed... or whatever. (i.e. skimming intro's to decide whether one wants to read more at depth.) Also, everything in the end leads to that article, so linking it is less valuable, to my way of thinking.
Hence my original tied the rock record via that to the chronology and to the time scale. (My involvement in the field was because I failed to find basic defines and ties between and explainations of the relations of such things as stages versus ages. As WW points out above, another formula might make sense, and there are other means of measuring chronology... which need mention and coverage in geologic record, imho.

Cheers // FrankB 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but it wasn't a {{fact}} but a {{huh}}. In any case, I've rewritten the table to more clearly express what I think is the definition of "chronozone" based on your comments; thanks. As for the link to geologic record, I thought there were too many links cluttering what is really just a table explaining terminology, and geologic time scale gives an explanation of the history of the earth (and the terminology) whereas geologic record does not. -- Beland (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is not entirely correct/complete in the definitions. As far as I heard from Quaternary geologists, the terms chron and chronozone are (at least in their field) used as subdivisions of ages/stages. I am not sure if the IUGS recognizes these terms, they are probably too small to be included in the international geologic timescale anyway. There is a second meaning in magnetostratigraphy, where a chron can be any division of the rock column that formed during a time span with equal magnetic polarity. Woodwalker (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated citation to the ICS Chart

I suggest changing the embedded citation to something like this:

<ref name=ICS_Chart>{{cite web |url=http://www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-chart-timescale |title=International Chronostratigraphic Chart |publisher=International Commission on Stratigraphy |accessdate=June 2014}}</ref>

I will leave the details and implementation to the fine folks who manage this template. =) — Jaydiem (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2015-01.pdf

--Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]