Talk:Timeline of natural history

Proposed split

About the proposed split: I have no objection to the creation of separate more detailed articles as suggested. However, I think this consolidated list gives a useful combined overview of all these topics, and should be kept, with links to other more detailed timelines as appropriate.--Kotniski (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

4 million years ago: start of last ice age

This does not agree with the Vostok Ice Core nor do the links suppport it. Where does this come form? Tks Veteran0101 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, some editors have problems in vocabulary and dating f.e. glacial vs. ice age 2.588 Ma ago (end of pliocene) would be more correct, i guess. 80.186.209.39 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

revised. Serendi^podous 06:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversal of Order

Why in blazes did someone undertake to start with the most recent dates on top, going further and further back to the bottom. This makes no sense at all.66.108.94.216 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Disappointed in Wiki editorship Allen Roth

The Big Bang is not an event usually tied to the word "prehistory"; yes, technically it is prehistoric, but the term prehistoric is almost always used in reference to Homo sapiens. The Big Bang has more to do with cosmology and physics than prehistory, and so to see it at the top of the timeline is somewhat jarring, at least for me. Serendi^podous 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguably a "backwards" order makes as much sense. It is how we unravel the story: it reflects archaeological and geological stratigraphy and the fact that the resolution of our knowledge diminishes as the distance from the present increases. It may not seem 'intuitive' at first but this actually ought to help people engage with the material PatHadley (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The principal issues I had with reversing the order (use of the word "prehistory" and the inclusion of the stone age) have been resolved. So I reversed the order to earliest to latest. Serendi^podous 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest writing 7000 years old vs Jiahu

It says in the article that protowriting evolved 7000 years ago but the Jiahu culture had a script 9000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.206.7 (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some controversy as to whether these symbols are systematic or merely random pictograms. Serendi^podous 11:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

stone age timeline (part of prehistory)

Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_prehistory&diff=436536951&oldid=436500714

Serendipodous, why did you remove the stone age timeline (part of prehistory) from the timeline article!?! This really belongs here. This timeline isn't that complex. --J. D. Redding 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it didn't add any new information to the timeline, and made it harder to read. Serendi^podous 05:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want simple, go to Simple:. It should be here. And it added contextual information to the article. I'm going to readd it as a ... to the side. It should be here. J. D. Redding 10:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Serendipodous - this page is most useful if the layout is kept simple. Detailed timelines for particular periods can go in the articles on those periods.--Kotniski (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the timeline article. Timelins should not be in the timeline article? --J. D. Redding 10:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well no. This article is a timeline (of a sort; not a graphical one, but it is a "timeline"). That doesn't mean it has to contain lots of more detailed timelines within it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason why the timeline should not be in the timeline article.

And ... Why do you want to remove the details? --J. D. Redding 11:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The timeline is in the timeline article (the article is the timeline). That doesn't mean we have to put other more specific timelines into it as well. This page is intended as an overview, so cluttering it up with excessive detail about a particular period is going to make it less convenient to use for its intended purpose.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is about contextual information.

Cluttering it up with excessive detail? How are the below 'timeline in question' doing that?

When was the discussion that this should be "intended as an overview"?

A list of date is no very helpful. a visual representation allow the reader to see the time-spans easier ... I'm not sure if you have messed with alot of dates in history, but they are not very useful to understand the scope and quantity of subjects ...

The article only has few parts: stone age, complex life, and earth formation. Each should have a easy graphic timeline in-addition to the textual date listings ...

BTW, didn't see anything Wikipedia:Timeline that exclude the inclusion of such information. --J. D. Redding 11:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is, that the graphic timelines overwhelm the article and make the information less accessible. They're all already in Stone Age, to which this article now links, so they're not necessary. Serendi^podous 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Please read Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy.

And, you have not stated _how_ does the graphic timelines "overwhelm" the artilce?

Anyways, I'll be putting a graphjical timeline in, I'll try to rework it into a verticle [if it can be small [verts are bigger than horizontals]] ... Or maybe just make a complete section at the bottome of the article to put in graphic timelines [much like gallery section in several article). --J. D. Redding 22:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC) PS., Good job on the section Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic etc.,, was goin to do something similar ... just haven't had time ...

If you can't see why those graphs make the list impossible to read, then all I can say is we're going to have to take this dispute to a higher level of arbitration. Serendi^podous 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have an idea I can live with. Serendi^podous 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Timelines in question

Stone Age Overview Main articles: Early Stone Age and Middle Stone Age Aproximated dates are in millenniums (1000s of years); Dates are Before Present.

End of the Stone Age Main article: Later Stone Age Aproximated dates are in centuries (100s of years); Dates are before the Common Era (BC) The ancient "Metal Ages", not part of the Stone Age, are composed of the Bronze Age and the Iron Age.

Abbreviations OD - Older Dryas YD - Younger Dryas AT1 - Early Atlantic AT2 - Middle Atlantic LA.I - Late Atlantic I LA.II - Late Atlantic II TD - Temperature decline ED - Elm-decline

stone age - end?

Why does this stop at the stone age? Geologic history didn't stop just because some brainy critter started throwing rocks (using geological materials). It should extend right up to the present - geology is still active.
Plus it seems more about paleontology than geology.
And: 34 million years ago: cats begin to evolve ... hmm what did the pre 34 mya cats do? how long were they in stasis before some unknown kitty says let's evolve. Vsmith (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The end of the stone age begins the shift from natural history to real history. I thought this timeline should focus on geology/paleontology rather than archaeology or cultural anthropology. So, anyway, I changed the title. Serendi^podous 02:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah ... better - still thinking as I watch where it goes. Thanks for helping the kitty bit too. Vsmith (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)