Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Template talk:Life timeline

WikiProject Biology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon Life timeline is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Geology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon Template:Life timeline 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Updated "{{Life timeline}}" TalkPageEdit

ALSO => See related "Template talk:Human timeline" and "Template talk:Nature timeline" pages - ALSO => "Template talk:Nature timeline#Best wording" and "VPT post (06/28/2016)" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

TimingEdit

Yep! Flowers are a surprisingly late occurrence in the tree of life! Verisimilus T 09:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity.. If plants lived successfully without flowers for so long, why were flowers developed so recently? Was it the rise of insects that favored a different method of reproduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.161.128 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • what's with the "dinosaurs" thing? Let's be precise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.86.195 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Dinosaurs" denotes the paraphyletic group that does not include birds. Verisimilus T 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
So why is dinosaurs in quotations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.156.199 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  Done - Quotation marks re dinosaurs removed - seems better after all - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Axis scaleEdit

Y axis need a unit! is it in million years or billion years or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.16.235 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done - "Template - Life timeline" has now been updated => Y-axis scale is currently noted in "Millions of years ago" (not "billions") - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverse order? Chronological?Edit

When examining this wonderful timeline at "Timeline of evolution#Basic timeline (28 October 2010)", I've always been frustrated that the order of the text-list and the graphical-timeline do not match. The text-list begins at the beginning of earth's time, and lists items chronologically. Whereas this graphical timeline begins in the present, and lists items in reverse order.

I had the same concern at Timeline of aviation, and switched that graphical-timeline around a few years ago.

I was wondering if it would be possible and acceptable to do the same here? Any support, or objections, or concerns, or offers of assistance, would be appreciated. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is customary in geology to present time in a column, read upwards. This corresponds to stratigraphy, in that the oldest events (layers) will be on the bottom. The scientific convention best reflects the nature of the information. Unfortunately, in European languages text is read down rather than up, so discussions must proceed in that direction. I highly recommend retaining the traditional graphical presentation, as this reflects how the information is presented by professional scientists, and will thus provide the best introduction to the subject for others. Here a logical, effective graphical presentation conflicts with an arbitrary lexicographical convention; it seems clear that the former should be preserved, even at the expense of some minor confusion. Would you advocate abandoning the use of superscripts to differentiate isotopes because superscripts are difficult to implement in ASCII? 206.77.151.192 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  Done - That pointer to stratigraphy works perfectly. As long as they're following standard conventions, I'm content. ("If you're not confused, you're not paying attention." - Tom Peters) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Larger version?Edit

It would be great to have a larger version of this linear time line, that would be easier to read and have more detail. -Pgan002 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Done - "Template - Life timeline" has now been updated with better visuals (text and colors) and more noted detail (and related wikilinks) - any further suggested improvements welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ColorsEdit

If someone could do something about the colors, that would be great. Photosynthesis and Eukaryotic are so similar I can hardly tell them apart - that or they're the same color despite being about a billion years apart. 71.67.129.114 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done - FWIW - updated "Template - Life timeline" with better colors (and text/wikilinks as well) - blues represent lifeforms in the ocean; browns, land - should now be better - please comment if otherwise of course - or if there may be any further suggested improvements for the template - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How did Life Survive after so many catastrophesEdit

Hi, As seen from the history of evolution, Life survived most disastrous catastrophes, how did life survive in such conditions, for eg. after Acid Rain, Few forms like algae survived...How? My next question is : Water droplets & Life evolved on Earth from Meteor rain, How did the Water droplets & Bacteria survive on hot burning Meteors...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.5 (talkcontribs) 06:55, 18 July 2012

  Done - replied at userpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing between fact and fictionEdit

I find it disturbing that this article implies that it is known scientific fact what happened billions of years ago when in reality it is congecture and interpretation. Using scientific sounding words tends to give credibility to this deception. It is poor science to assign a greater level of confidence to something than the observable evidence permits. Exaggerating the evidence or representating an interpretation as an observable fact is poor science. It would be better to clearly identify what are the observable facts and what are interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.154.39 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done - "Template - Life timeline" has now been updated with wikilinks to articles for the best available support of the observable facts noted on the template timeline - any further suggested improvements welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How to add this template to my website?Edit

Is there any code to add this to my website with all the hot-links? I tried right-clicking on "view page source" and am not sure if that's what to copy-paste . . . I'm not too smart with HTML. Thanks, nice work, I recently added it to Rare Earth hypothesis. Was also wondering if you could change "GOE" to Great oxygenation event. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done - @Raquel Baranow: Thank you for posting - no problem whatsoever for Wikipedia articles - simply add, to a Wikipedia article or page, the following template code => {{Life timeline}} - (Note: adding the template with hyperlinks to a non-Wikipedia website may be more challenging - and may require including the entire Wikipedia url for each of the hyperlinks - not sure about this, but maybe an "Image Map" and "Image Map Generator" of some sort might be helpful for non-Wikipedia websites - comments from others about this welcome of course) - re adjusting "GOE" to "Great Oxygenation Event" => reduced font/wording to avoid overlapping text (Note: "Great O2 Event" or "Oxygen crisis" [an alternative name for the "Event"] seem to fit the "timeline graph" better) - hope the above comments help in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Land Life later than Cambrian explosionEdit

Someone good at editing the colored regions should have the brown region currently labeled "land plants" and "land animals", which now appear to begin at roughly the same time as the Cambrian explosion, begin a little later, in the Silurian period, as there was was little land life before then; and perhaps these should both link to Silurian, which contains more information on when land plants and animals appeared than the Terrestrial animals article. I was able to make this change in the less detailed Timeline of natural history template, but don't see how to do it here.CharlesHBennett (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Done - @CharlesHBennett: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - "Land life" on the current timeline (at -541 Mya) has now been newly adjusted to a later time (at -443.8 Mya) (per "Silurian" article) and is now wikilinked to "Silurian#Flora and fauna" - hope this helps in some way - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Class Aves as a subset of Dinosaur?Edit

In modern paleontology, birds are usually seen as the sole surviving line of dinosaurs. Further, contemporary thought tends to run with the idea that all descendants of a group are necessarily part of that group. However, in our otherwise lovely life timeline, the dinosaurs terminate. Shouldn't there be a thin line extending to modern times, as modern thought dictates that birds are a surviving lineage of dinosaurs? Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Icarosaurvus - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - agreed - however - this may not be easily done (and may not look very good - due to restricted template spacing?) with this particular "Life timeline" template (nonetheless - presenting your own test efforts with this at the "Template:Life timeline/sandbox" may be worth a review for "WP:CONSENSUS" of course) - at the moment - the template wikilink to the "Dinosaur" article, where the association of "Dinosaurs" to "Birds" is very well described (specifically, at "Dinosaur#Origin of birds" and "Origin of birds"), may be sufficient - ALSO - and perhaps more relevant to this particular discussion - and - "as posted earlier above" => "Dinosaurs" (in the "Life timeline") denotes the "paraphyletic group" that does "Not" include "birds" - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Since birds are dinosaurs that means dinosaurs are still around and this timeline should reflect it. Anything else is simply a mactual error. Abyssal (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Abyssal: FWIW - seems birds derived from dinosaurs - but the word "dinosaur" may not include birds - after all, according to "one definition", the word "dinosaur" => "a fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, often reaching an enormous size" (similar definitions here => "Merriam-Webster" and "Oxford") - which birds are not afaik - Comments Welcome from other editors - to reach some "WP:CONSENSUS" on the issue - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What about the definition "all of the descendants of the most recent ancestor shared by Triceratops and the common house sparrow"? Because that's the one actual scientists use. Abyssal (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done - @Abyssal: The common dictionary definition (one likely used by most Wikipedia viewers) of "Dinosaur" seems (much?) better than a less common (& uncited?) definition imo - also - please see related comments at => "WP:EN"; "WP:UCRN"; "WP:DICTS" - IF Possible, the best wording(s) for the "{{Life timeline}}" may be wordings as non-technical and as brief as possible - more detail re the wording may be found at associated wikilinks - this may make the "{{Life timeline}}" more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1] - (also - see related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (September 3, 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved September 28, 2016. 

Age of the Earth older?Edit

The latest estimate of the age of the earth is 4568 million years, not 4540 million. Reference:[1] Bouvier, A. and Wadha, M., 2010, The age of the solar system redefined by the oldest Pb-Pb age of a meteorite inclusion: Nature Geoscience, v. 3, p. 637-641. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/full/ngeo941.html 132.241.71.81 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  Done - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and 2010 reference in Nature Geoscience[1] suggesting a somewhat older determination (ie, 4568 mya) of the age of the Earth - however - a more recent 2013 reference in Scientific American[2] - and summarizing more than one such studies - found otherwise (ie, the currently noted age of 4540 mya) (also see the "Age of the Earth" article) - this age determination seems more settled in the responsible scientific literature at the moment - this may change - esp if other researchers are able to reproduce and/or support the older determination of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Bouvier, Audrey; Wadhwa, Meenakshi (August 22, 2010). "The age of the Solar System redefined by the oldest Pb–Pb age of a meteoritic inclusion". Nature Geoscience. 3: 637–641. doi:10.1038/ngeo941. Retrieved September 15, 2016. 
  2. ^ Braterman, Paul S. (2013). "How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth". Scientific American. Retrieved September 15, 2016. 

TransclusionsEdit

Drbogdan, you made some nice navboxes, but please stop spamming them to barely related articles (Grand Canyon...), they take up too much screen space for that. --dab (𒁳) 15:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done - @Dbachmann: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - the edits were made in good faith as possible improvements to the articles - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) 15:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thanks -- I do not doubt your good faith, and your timelines are well-made, I just feel they have been added in places where they are not really appropriate (navboxes are competing for screen real estate with images and article content). Thanks + happy editing, --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"Flowers" missing a link?Edit

Why is "flowers" missing a link? Should it be added? If yes, would it lead to flower?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done - @Adûnâi: "Flowers" in the "Life timeline" is not missing a link - "Flowers" is (and has been) wiki-linked to => "Flowering plant" - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! For some reason, it only shows for me when I hover the mouse cursor over the lower part of the word. It's somewhat hard to hit.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?Edit

FWIW - Seems the following edit is relevant, worthy and well sourced - and should be copied to talk:

Copied from "User talk:Red Planet X (Hercolubus)#First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?":

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): Thank you for your recent edits on the {{Nature timeline}} -
QUESTION: Do you have a reference to support your noted 4.412 bya data? So far, I've found cited support for the 4.4 bya data at the following => "Origin of water on Earth#Water in the development of Earth" - and - "National Science Foundation (2001)" - Several references, "NASA (2005)" - and - "National Geographic (2001)", suggests a more recent date => 4.3 bya - in any case - Thanks again for your edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): BRIEF Followup - answer may have been found - seems the oceans may have formed as early as => at least 4.404 ± 0.008 bya - based on dating of Zircon minerals[1] - this seems to account for your noted 4.412 bya data - in any regards - Thanks again for your recent editing efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wilde S.A., Valley J.W., Peck W.H. and Graham C.M. (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6817): 175–8. PMID 11196637. doi:10.1038/35051550. 

Hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Current ice ageEdit

In the image the current ice age looks like it stops before reaching the present. This is confusing, because the current ice age is still ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:172C:F900:E8AC:8969:8232:4EDD (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  Done - I've moved it 1 px up, although 0 is covered by highlight a bit. --Obsuser (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent removal of template from various pagesEdit

I have noticed this template being removed of at least three articles recently, the last example being the Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate article, another being Evidence of common descent, I fail to remember which other article, but it may have been one of the ID or creationism articles. This makes me wonder if this template was "spammed" into many articles, if there's an issue with the template, or if some of the removals were unconstructive. When it is removed the description usually is that it's off-topic or out of place. Just a note, in case someone thinks the template has a problem that can be corrected, that it should be added back somewhere, or removed from elsewhere. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 04:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  Done - @PaleoNeonate: FWIW - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and presenting awareness of the issue - for my part at least - edits were made in good faith as possible improvements to articles - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors - restoring worthy edits is welcome as well of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Look, I'm tired of your template. I stumble upon this thing everywhere I go, and most of the times it is totally unrelated to the article! Holy Goo (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who created this thread, so I can't completely dismiss your comment, but considering this, please point out which off-topic article the template should be removed from, instead of vaguely complaining? Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 01:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: You want just one example? See Cambrian. The template is leaving a huge blank space and it doesn't complement anything that's contained in the section, as the cambrian period is not even in the template. How many more examples do you want? Holy Goo (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It is in the Oceanic life section (relating to the Cambrian explosion), and I do see Cambrian in that template. —PaleoNeonate - 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see that it was just moved there  . Does this resolve the issue for this article? —PaleoNeonate - 02:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done - re "Cambrian" article concern => "relocated { {Life timeline}} to better location - to avoid blank space - and closer to the section containing "cambrian explosion" - which is noted in the template" - seems better after all - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Now it's a little better, but still, that was just one example. Holy Goo (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: FWIW - Thank you for your comments - Template is not mine, but the result of over 50 editors instead - please discuss possible improvements on talk-pages of articles for WP:CONSENSUS - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Life timeline" page.