Talk:Pleistocene

Image is outdated, can we get a new one?

This image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Pleistocene_north_ice_map.jpg/220px-Pleistocene_north_ice_map.jpg) is quite clearly outdated.

Could we get one with no countries or at least modern countries and maybe a bit more of Europe in it?BullNiro (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There are three graphics that we could use, I'm not sure which would be best. Mikenorton (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Need to scrap and re-write the entire Major Events section

This section is poorly written. It appears to have been hacked repeatedly and has lost its cohesiveness.

It contains old and useless information and charts.

It contains information that appears to have been just stuck here for lack of a better place to put it.

It contains a graph of CO2 found in Antarctic glaciers with no explanation tying it to the Major Events. (Yes, I get it, but not everyone will.)

It is missing one of the most obvious things that should be in this section: a timeline showing the coming and going of the glaciers. Yes, there is a link to a timeline article, but it would be useful to have a simple timeline right here. The CO2 graph does hint at this information, but why not make it clear and concise? I say move the CO2 graph to the timeline article to use as supplemental information and replace it with a copy of that timeline graphic from the timeline article.

I am not a geologist and do not feel qualified to actually do the re-write, but I'm smart enough to see that a re-write is desperately needed. If nobody does one I'll probably come back and at least chop out a lot of stuff that doesn't belong here. FatBear1 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Self edit: I looked more closely at that timeline graphic and it is not useful, either. Is there a timeline for the Pleistocene glaciations that could be placed in this section?FatBear1 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The glaciations are defined differently in different parts of the globe, as the final correlation chart in ref #3 [1] shows. I've just hunted through a variety of web, book and academic paper resources and I would say that it's not a simple task. For the last 450,000 years there is very useful graphic here, but that's only a small part of the period. The most up-to-date chart is Cohen & Gibbard's 2011 version, so something based on that would be good I think, but it would need to improve on the current table in Timeline of glaciation. Mikenorton (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Chibanian or Ionian

Google Translation of a web page http://www.sankei.com/smp/life/news/171113/lif1711130023-s1.html in Japanese linked by User:John3825 to supposedly support their change of Ionian to Chibanian on 13 November 2017:

To the birth of "Chiba Era" in Earth history Japan's first geological age name, Italy breaks at the international judging Tivanian 2017.11.13 14: 01 update On the 13th, it was learned from a stake in the stakeholders that the age of about 770,000 to 126,000 years ago in the history of the earth was named "Tivanian" (Chiba Era). A Japanese research team aiming for naming, applying for a stratum of Chiba prefecture to the international conference as a reference base of this age, broke competing Italy in the primary examination. Also announce it in the week. If it is decided officially it will be a great achievement that the name of Japan will be attached to the geological age for the first time. The Japanese team and two Italian teams applied for the International Geological Science Federation in June each year, the stratum of the reference site, which is the international standard of this age. The working group composed of experts from each country examined and voted on the 10th of this month, Japan was selected as a candidate place with the support of more than 60% of the whole. Three further stages of examination are expected until the official approval expected in next year, but in the past the conclusion of the working group covered only the exceptional case, which was virtually settled. In Japan, the National Polar Research Institute and teams such as Ibaraki Univ. Apply for the stratum of Ichihara city, Chiba prefecture as the reference place. We advocated the age name of Tibanian meaning the Chiba era in Latin. Italy had applied for two southern strata, aiming at the age name of "Ionian".

This translation shows that only a recommendation of the working group has been approved. This is still unofficial until it has been ratified/approved by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). Until that offical approval is agreed sometime in the future, any official change to Chibanian is speculation and premature. Wikipedia is supposed to state facts not speculation about what may happen in the future. I recommend that User:John3825's edits about the change of name to Chibanian should be reverted (again). I have already reverted them once but User:John3825 applied his changes again. I will not get into an edit war. My comments also apply to User:John3825's edits about the Chibanian at Middle Pleistocene and Template:Quaternary (period). GeoWriter (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Check the news and look what you will find on the search. Over 33000 news about the IUGS decision which officially approved which voted result over 60% their proposed site as an official site instead of prior proposed site "Ionian." Check carefully what it said also look for more articles on the web within recent periods 24 - 1 wks. Also, "Ionian" is only a proposed site from the news, never officially approved nor announced official.John3825 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked. He made 3 appeals all of which attacked others. A Google search turns up only a handful of articles all saying more or less the same thing, that it's likely. Doug Weller talk 19:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The English translation of your source says: "Three further stages of examination are expected until the official approval expected in next year". How can you say the decision is already official? Your source says it is not official and therefore your source does not support your edits. GeoWriter (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The translation stated that

"The Japanese team and two Italian teams applied for the International Geological Science Federation in June, respectively, the stratum of the reference site which is the international standard of this age. The working group composed of experts from each country examined and voted on the 10th of this month, Japan was selected as a candidate place with the support of more than 60% of the whole." and No "Ionian" anymore. Check the Google with keyword "Chibanian" within 24 hpur result. It will show at least 33000 result with the news about the official decision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John3825 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC) 

Need archive tempate

I created Talk:Pleistocene/Archive 1 but I've never had much success setting the archive templates. If you know how, please do that for us? Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Pleistocene in text & on chart inconsistent

Pleistocene on table/chart: How can Pleistocene be FIRST epoch (in text) when table shows it in the second position? Something’s not jibing. Fiona Marissa 20:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionaussie (talk • contribs)

The text does match the chart. The Pleistocene is also the first (i.e. oldest) epoch of the Quaternary Period in the chart because the chart follows the standard stratigraphic representation of rock strata and geological time intervals: earlier epochs are placed at lower positions in the chart and the epochs become younger upwards (intended to reflect how older rock layers are at the base of a rock sequence and younger rock layers are deposited on top of older rock layers). I recommend that such stratigraphic charts are usually best read from the bottom upwards. GeoWriter (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This article needs complete rewriting

This article is anything but a "high quality" article. It is severely outdated, inaccurate, and plain wrong. It presents the "out of Africa" as if it were a scientific fact when it is still at best just a working hypothesis.

WP:TPOC
The graphics are a joke, the information is a joke. But then, it IS just a wikipedia, no? A collection of nonsense and quasi-science. Better than this cannot be expected. I suggest you geniuses go learn something useful. Knitting or how to grow gardenias. You will suck at it, but hey. Less damage done in that than in doodling on internet. Appalling "article". And they abound across the wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.61.170 (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

While arguably this article is indeed inadequate considering it gets 1,300 views per day the "out of Africa" parodigm may as well be as well proved as the theory of relativity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Image Overlap

The Chronology image has some overlap that obscures the link for the Holocene. SquashEngineer (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)