This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm working from my long timeline and trying to choose the least controversial items, but edits are welcome. -- robotwisdom 3 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
I guess as each year goes by, the events near the boundaries of the last few rows will have to be reevaluated, and moved up the chart.— GraemeMcRae talk 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As is so often the case in the English Wikipedia (not surprising considering where most editors must live), there is a strong US bias in the events. Such as listing several US presidents and the San Francisco earthquake, but leaving out the Republic of China. That must be one of the major changes in world history - the end of the millennia old sequence of empires in the biggest and historically most significant country in the world. I've added that. Removing items might however upset some people, so I'll first wait for any reactions to this. How many events should be listed per 'era' anyway? DirkvdM 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I found this article while looking for something different, but similar. A list of timelines which scale up/down with a factor ten. So the first one would cover the last 10 billion years, the second one the last billion years, then the last 100 million years, etc, to the last year (after that it would become a newspaper - which would still make sense, just not in this format). The first list does not cover the Big Bang, but when, and even if, that happened is uncertain, so it could be mentioned separately at the beginning, outside the lists. Each list itself would however be linear. So there would be 11 lists. The first one would be a bit boring (just the creation of the Solar system and the first life). The second one would look like something this (mya = million years ago):
This list is based on the Timeline of evolution. And there are many other timelines, but no general ones. So, basically, what I want is a combined timeline of all the existing ones (and then some, I suppose). The third timeline would be for the last 100 milion years. Of course, there could also be such lists for periods that do not end in the present. Maybe 400-500 mya would be interresting (life creeping on land). This would then go on a separate page. Of course, this could theoretically lead to an exponential explosion of timelines, but not all would be interresting enough.
Basically, this is just a different presentation of what's on this page, just more easily readable for someone who doesn't grasp logarithms (and at the same time clarifying that). And it has a much greater potential for expansion.
Does something like this already exist and if not, what should it be called? DirkvdM 08:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
There is still a US bias in the last few decades. -- Beland 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
if you're going to keep updating the table, you need to be aware that events will migrate up in the table. It won't do to stuff an ever expanding period of time into the last row. By the nature of a logarithmic timeline, the last row covers the shortest period (say, one year). The second-but-last row, if we're going to stick with the unintuitive 10^0.1, will then be 1.26 years. This is supposed to be a logarithmic timescale, so it should be done properly (or not at all). -- dab (𒁳) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
there is no concensus on a formation date for this star. see
Gliese 876 , Correia, A. C. M.; Couetdic, J.; Laskar, J.; Bonfils, X.; Mayor, M.; Bertaux, J.-L.; Bouchy, F.; Delfosse, X.; Forveille, T.; Lovis, C.; Pepe, F.; Perrier, C.; Queloz, D.; Udry, S. (2010). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets. XIX. Characterization and dynamics of the GJ 876 planetary system". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 511: A21.
arXiv:
1001.4774.
Bibcode:
2010A&A...511A..21C.
doi:
10.1051/0004-6361/200912700. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), Saffe, C.; Gómez, M.; Chavero, C. (2005).
"On the Ages of Exoplanet Host Stars". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 443 (2): 609–626.
Bibcode:
2005A&A...443..609S.
doi:
10.1051/0004-6361:20053452. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Zeimusu |
Talk page
23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed an entry in the 2.5Ga-2Ga section stating that the Milky Way was created by the collision of 2 galaxies. The reference was an article about the Milky Way colliding with another galaxy 2Ga ago, NOT about the Milky Way being created then.... according to Wikipedia's Milky Way page, the oldest star in the Milky Way is 13Ga old and the galactic disk is 8.8Ga old... if we want a Milky Way creation event in the timeline, then it should be either of these 2 events, not a collision 2Ga ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
User Dougweller has removed the mentions of the Valsequillo Basin "footprints" and the Cactus Hill artefacts. I think we should leave them in. In the case of the "footprints", we say "possible human footprints". This doesn't mean that they are definitely footprints. But it does direct people to the subject so they can try to evaluate it for themselves. In the case of Cactus Hill, the artefacts exist. I don't understand Dougweller's comment. In any case, I don't think the few words on these two subjects are worth an "edit war" and using up Wikimedia's disk space by creating more and more old versions, just because we don't agree about whether to let people know about these possible signs of mankind's presence in America or to keep the people ignorant! Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
March 16, 2880, there is a 1:300 chance of the asteroid [ (29075) 1950 DA] impacting Earth. Which at a little over a kilometre in diameter, would not be a good day. Worth noting.
As a geologist, I'm a little suspicious of putting the "land too hot for life" entry in the 1Gy and greater band ; It could be significantly earlier (there are complex feedbacks between surface temperature and the greenhouse effect of water vapour). Aidan Karley ( talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
New idea: 10 – 100 Ya: 130
Te decays away.
Alfa-ketosav (
talk)
12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Gob Lofa: You say we need to discuss my modification. I'm simply carrying out the restructuring that you started. What do you suggest? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Gob Lofa: But the lengths of time from break points until now is meant to change logarithmically. (That's how it is in the rest of this table.) The ratio of one length to the next is 100.1, which is about 1.26. So if we put a break at 1 year ago, then the previous break should be at 1.26 years ago (only 0.26 years earlier), and the one before that at 1.6 years ago (giving a slot of 1.6 minus 1.26 or 0.34 years), and before that at 2 years ago, then 2.5 years ago, et cetera. You see the problem? It would be too hard to do and too hard to maintain (since the break points would change from month to month). Besides, it wouldn't mesh correctly with the time intervals before that (like 9 to 7, 11 to 9, ...). That's why I proposed to lump the last 5.5 years, or the last 7 years. That way we wouldn't have to start splitting years into pieces. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Gob Lofa: But I've already explained why that's not good. What do you say about what I said? The way it is now, after you have reverted my edit, the last 16 years are not logarithmic. (And the earlier part is messy and inconsistent.) Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Detailed logarithmic timeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Human bias towards end of the chart. Why? Things still happen outside human political/religious/human bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:1:111:4449:F9DB:73EA:3BCC ( talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
For context, here's a timeline of events:
The discussion I wish to start here concerns the "protests of 2019" entry and whether or not it should contain the aforementioned Deletionpedia link. – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Is it okay if we put each table inside a label you an close. This way would be easier to navigate this article Ericulture ( talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Partial sample – up to 55 ka
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Would it be acceptable for the table in the article's Future section to be edited to follow the Renard algorithm (like the tables for the past) or would it be better for it to stay in its current form? – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm working from my long timeline and trying to choose the least controversial items, but edits are welcome. -- robotwisdom 3 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
I guess as each year goes by, the events near the boundaries of the last few rows will have to be reevaluated, and moved up the chart.— GraemeMcRae talk 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As is so often the case in the English Wikipedia (not surprising considering where most editors must live), there is a strong US bias in the events. Such as listing several US presidents and the San Francisco earthquake, but leaving out the Republic of China. That must be one of the major changes in world history - the end of the millennia old sequence of empires in the biggest and historically most significant country in the world. I've added that. Removing items might however upset some people, so I'll first wait for any reactions to this. How many events should be listed per 'era' anyway? DirkvdM 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I found this article while looking for something different, but similar. A list of timelines which scale up/down with a factor ten. So the first one would cover the last 10 billion years, the second one the last billion years, then the last 100 million years, etc, to the last year (after that it would become a newspaper - which would still make sense, just not in this format). The first list does not cover the Big Bang, but when, and even if, that happened is uncertain, so it could be mentioned separately at the beginning, outside the lists. Each list itself would however be linear. So there would be 11 lists. The first one would be a bit boring (just the creation of the Solar system and the first life). The second one would look like something this (mya = million years ago):
This list is based on the Timeline of evolution. And there are many other timelines, but no general ones. So, basically, what I want is a combined timeline of all the existing ones (and then some, I suppose). The third timeline would be for the last 100 milion years. Of course, there could also be such lists for periods that do not end in the present. Maybe 400-500 mya would be interresting (life creeping on land). This would then go on a separate page. Of course, this could theoretically lead to an exponential explosion of timelines, but not all would be interresting enough.
Basically, this is just a different presentation of what's on this page, just more easily readable for someone who doesn't grasp logarithms (and at the same time clarifying that). And it has a much greater potential for expansion.
Does something like this already exist and if not, what should it be called? DirkvdM 08:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
There is still a US bias in the last few decades. -- Beland 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
if you're going to keep updating the table, you need to be aware that events will migrate up in the table. It won't do to stuff an ever expanding period of time into the last row. By the nature of a logarithmic timeline, the last row covers the shortest period (say, one year). The second-but-last row, if we're going to stick with the unintuitive 10^0.1, will then be 1.26 years. This is supposed to be a logarithmic timescale, so it should be done properly (or not at all). -- dab (𒁳) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
there is no concensus on a formation date for this star. see
Gliese 876 , Correia, A. C. M.; Couetdic, J.; Laskar, J.; Bonfils, X.; Mayor, M.; Bertaux, J.-L.; Bouchy, F.; Delfosse, X.; Forveille, T.; Lovis, C.; Pepe, F.; Perrier, C.; Queloz, D.; Udry, S. (2010). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets. XIX. Characterization and dynamics of the GJ 876 planetary system". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 511: A21.
arXiv:
1001.4774.
Bibcode:
2010A&A...511A..21C.
doi:
10.1051/0004-6361/200912700. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), Saffe, C.; Gómez, M.; Chavero, C. (2005).
"On the Ages of Exoplanet Host Stars". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 443 (2): 609–626.
Bibcode:
2005A&A...443..609S.
doi:
10.1051/0004-6361:20053452. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Zeimusu |
Talk page
23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed an entry in the 2.5Ga-2Ga section stating that the Milky Way was created by the collision of 2 galaxies. The reference was an article about the Milky Way colliding with another galaxy 2Ga ago, NOT about the Milky Way being created then.... according to Wikipedia's Milky Way page, the oldest star in the Milky Way is 13Ga old and the galactic disk is 8.8Ga old... if we want a Milky Way creation event in the timeline, then it should be either of these 2 events, not a collision 2Ga ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
User Dougweller has removed the mentions of the Valsequillo Basin "footprints" and the Cactus Hill artefacts. I think we should leave them in. In the case of the "footprints", we say "possible human footprints". This doesn't mean that they are definitely footprints. But it does direct people to the subject so they can try to evaluate it for themselves. In the case of Cactus Hill, the artefacts exist. I don't understand Dougweller's comment. In any case, I don't think the few words on these two subjects are worth an "edit war" and using up Wikimedia's disk space by creating more and more old versions, just because we don't agree about whether to let people know about these possible signs of mankind's presence in America or to keep the people ignorant! Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
March 16, 2880, there is a 1:300 chance of the asteroid [ (29075) 1950 DA] impacting Earth. Which at a little over a kilometre in diameter, would not be a good day. Worth noting.
As a geologist, I'm a little suspicious of putting the "land too hot for life" entry in the 1Gy and greater band ; It could be significantly earlier (there are complex feedbacks between surface temperature and the greenhouse effect of water vapour). Aidan Karley ( talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
New idea: 10 – 100 Ya: 130
Te decays away.
Alfa-ketosav (
talk)
12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Gob Lofa: You say we need to discuss my modification. I'm simply carrying out the restructuring that you started. What do you suggest? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Gob Lofa: But the lengths of time from break points until now is meant to change logarithmically. (That's how it is in the rest of this table.) The ratio of one length to the next is 100.1, which is about 1.26. So if we put a break at 1 year ago, then the previous break should be at 1.26 years ago (only 0.26 years earlier), and the one before that at 1.6 years ago (giving a slot of 1.6 minus 1.26 or 0.34 years), and before that at 2 years ago, then 2.5 years ago, et cetera. You see the problem? It would be too hard to do and too hard to maintain (since the break points would change from month to month). Besides, it wouldn't mesh correctly with the time intervals before that (like 9 to 7, 11 to 9, ...). That's why I proposed to lump the last 5.5 years, or the last 7 years. That way we wouldn't have to start splitting years into pieces. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Gob Lofa: But I've already explained why that's not good. What do you say about what I said? The way it is now, after you have reverted my edit, the last 16 years are not logarithmic. (And the earlier part is messy and inconsistent.) Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Detailed logarithmic timeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Human bias towards end of the chart. Why? Things still happen outside human political/religious/human bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:1:111:4449:F9DB:73EA:3BCC ( talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
For context, here's a timeline of events:
The discussion I wish to start here concerns the "protests of 2019" entry and whether or not it should contain the aforementioned Deletionpedia link. – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Is it okay if we put each table inside a label you an close. This way would be easier to navigate this article Ericulture ( talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Partial sample – up to 55 ka
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Would it be acceptable for the table in the article's Future section to be edited to follow the Renard algorithm (like the tables for the past) or would it be better for it to stay in its current form? – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)