This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Geological range template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Showing time graphically is a good idea, but why is most of Earth's history lumped together as the Precambrian? There's a big difference between the Archean and the Ediacaran, especially when you look at microbial taxa. Is it too late to modify the template to divide up the vast swath of Precambrian time? Cephal-odd ( talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
In the article titled Schinderhannes bartelsi, I found this, with a conspicuous punctuation error:
So I was going to edit it to say the following instead:
But I couldn't find that in the article when I edited it; instead I found this:
Somewhere within Wikipedia one must be able to find the information that needs to get edited. Where is it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
while generally a good template, i have to say that this is far from obvious for the casual user with no knowledge of geology. There should be a short explanation of what this means, linked via a ? or something. Also the visualisation is not ideal. I noticed it first on Porpoise, where the green bar to the very right is only noticable when searching for it. As said before, for the casual user this is just a colorful bar, nothing else. This is especially problematic when, as is the case in Porpoise, the explanation above says "Middle Miocene–Recent", but the bar does not have anything called Miocene, just a "N", which after clicking turns out to be Neocene, where you then find out that "Under the current proposal of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the Neogene would consist of the Miocene, and Pliocene epochs.". In short, the casual user cannot be expected to learn about Geology before getting anything out of a template that seems to be on every animal page. Quick fix: at a timeline under the bar with some indication how many million years ago the geological periods represent. Also make the green bar more obvious in some way or another.-- ExpImp talk con 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
To add to previous commenter's observations, this box just looks retarded when viewed with any typeface size beyond 8 points at moderate resolutions (such as the 1440x900 resolution of my laptop with which I am viewing a page using the {fossil range| template right now.
In short, it looks atrocious. user:akulkis 76.243.106.37 ( talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: this template can be very well used to display the age of geological units. Only thing that doesn't fit is the name of the template; it could be expanded to something more general, like "age range". Thanks. -- Qyd ( talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just added a taxobox to Ambilobeia, which lived in the Olenekian (early Triassic). This template recognises that name, but displays it at the end of the Permian (at least on my browser). The same appears to be true of Induan:
I don't know whether the error lies with Firefox, {{ fossil_range}} or {{ period_start}}, but I was hoping someone reading this might. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Two days ago I took the liberty of altering the width of the timeline from 200 pixels to 220 pixels, simply because it looked crowded (the 'PG' and 'N' barely fitted into their respective boxletts). Now someone has to adapt the fossil range-template please! -- Gliese876 ( talk) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ Fossil range/bar}} uses the HTML id "bar". When called multiple times, this results in duplicate ids, which causes a markup validation error. Example: W3C markup validation for Porbeagle.
{{ Fossil range/marker}} uses the HTML id "Range-border" with the same issues.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about other people's monitors but on mine the blue foreground against a purple background makes it very hard to see the letter "T" for Triassic. Perhaps changing it to a lighter color might help improve visibility. -- œ ™ 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(Note: this is not applicable to non-taxobox articles.)
It's been pointed out that Lazarus taxa such as the coelacanth are difficult to accurately express the period of existence using the fossil range template. We're proposing the template be modified to indicate the known period of existence, using both fossil and living specimens as references for solid bars and transparency for the hypothesized existence. This would mean extant creatures with fossil range templates would have the solid bar would extend to 0 Ma and that the text "fossil range" would need to be changed to something different, such as "known time span". Suggestions are welcome, as are comments, questions, and criticism of the overall idea. Members of the relevant WikiProjects are being notified of this RfC. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The "Quaternary" time period was recently added to this template. Should it stay? 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I know I'm not one to talk, but I'm not convinced this edit, which adds "Q" to the time scale following "N", was well-thought-out or supported by more than one editor. Could someone provide rationale for this? Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on the addition, but if it's going to be added then the bar needs to be fixed so that "Recent" makes it go to the end. -- Yzx ( talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Quaternary (what a horrible name considering there was never a Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary Period, by the way)" There used to be! The Tertiary is a recent loss (K-T boundary?) and the Quaternary is the last holdout from this much older system when the earth was thought to be much younger. Secondary pretty much corresponded to the modern concept of Mesozoic, by the way. Anyway I think we should stick to whatever the current ICS says, since it's not america-centric, is well-respected among researchers and is citable. MMartyniuk ( talk) 13:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Based on this [1] it looks like Quaternary suffered the same kind of controversy and follow-up vote as Pluto, and Wiki followed the official commission on that one by labeling Pluto as a dwarf planet. Why not here? MMartyniuk ( talk) 13:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC) One more thing: the ICS does recognize the Hadean, just labels it as informal as it does not have any definition or subdivisions. MMartyniuk ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Ed here. I can't tell whether this discussion has been resolved. Is there any sort of consensus on whether it is appropriate for us to include the Quaternary? Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder that whenever you add the RFC template to a page, you need to add an actual "question" or summary of the issue, followed by a signature or timestamp. Otherwise, the bot will pick up whatever the next random comment is, and folks looking at the list will have no idea at all what you want. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
See Leonerasaurus-- 199 Ma should appear in the blue range, not the purple range. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Could the Namurian be added to the geological range template please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 August 2011
Done
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Also to be added if possible the Paleocene North American Faunal Stages
Torrejonian,
Tiffanian, and
Clarkforkian. --
Kev
min
§ 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs) 18:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Example InfoBox on the Template Page, the "incertae" in "incertae sedis" should be capitalized (IE "Incertae sedis"). In a table (and an InfoBox is in fact a special kind of table), the first word in each cell should be capitalized as a matter of aesthetic decorum. It's a lot like the first word on a bullet point. In any Computer Technology or Computer Concepts class, they teach one these things in MS PowerPoint (R) and Word (R), and Wikipedia is visually not unlike a word processor. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Spaces are needed around the dash, especially because each part of the range is often made of several words. Please insert a non-breaking space (
) before the dash, and a space after the dash.
I was going to fix that myself, but it's stupidly locked.
Thank you.
-- Nnemo ( talk) 11:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}}
Please wrap {{{prefix}}}
, {{{3}}}
, and {{{PS}}}
in <span style="display:inline-block;">...</span>
as discussed at
Template talk:Automatic taxobox#arbitrary editing break. That is, the entire template should be
<includeonly><span style="display:inline-block;">{{{prefix|}}}</span><span style="display:inline-block;">{{{3|{{{text|{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|–{{{2|}}}}}{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|| Ma}}}}}}}}</span>{{{ref|{{{reference|{{{refs|{{{references|}}}}}}}}}}}} <span style="display:inline-block;">{{{PS|{{{ps|}}}}}}</span>{{Phanerozoic 220px}}<!-- Fossil range marker --><div name=Range style="margin:0 auto; line-height:0; clear:both; width:220px; padding:0px; height:8px; overflow:visible; background-color:transparent; position:relative; top:-4px; z-index:100;">{{fossil range/marker|{{#if:{{{earliest|}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{earliest}}}}}|{{period start|{{{earliest}}}}}|{{{earliest}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{period start|{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}}}|{{#if:{{{latest|}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{latest}}}}}|{{period end|{{{latest}}}}}|{{{latest}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{period end|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}|42<!-- This determines the opacity of the bar-->}} {{fossil range/marker|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{period start|{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{period end|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}} </div Range> </div Timeline-row></includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc}}</noinclude>
Gorobay ( talk) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ever since the title of the taxobox section that contains this template was changed from "Fossil range" to "Temporal range" I have followed the lead of other editors in using "Present" instead of "Recent" to describe extant taxa. In my and apparently others opinions, it makes no sense to describe the temporal range of say, Mammalia, as "Jurassic - Recent" when I know that mammals exist more than "recently". "Recent" made sense when the field was Fossil Range as it is possible to describe subfossils as recent where Holocene may not have been appropriate. The field has been labelled "Temporal Range" in the taxobox template for over a year. I recently had several of these edits reverted, however, so any comments? MMartyniuk ( talk) 16:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to get my fossil range to display from Triassic to Oligocene. I put in earliest=Triassic and latest=Oligocene, but I got an error and cannot see what I did wrong. Thanks. -- AfadsBad ( talk) 15:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the template apparently isn't good at handling time ranges due to uncertainty. In this particular case I can't find any date estimate narrower than 76 to 72 mya. I would suggest that some way of displaying this uncertainty without having to arbitrarily select a date is needed. Perhaps a |uncertain
parameter that prefixed "
somewhen between" and infixed "to" between the range numbers and would also fade out the bar. --
Dracontes (
talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Templates for narrower time spans would be probably useful, for example only Neogene or even only Quaternary. Because many animals lived in very narrow time span and their graphs are reduced to a tiny line, like those ones extinct at the end of last glacial period. Darekk2 ( talk) 01:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Below is a comparison between the current design and my proposal. It is, of course, just a mock-up and not a working template. The new design is slightly narrower, and yet (I think) it is also more legible because: 1) it lacks unnecessary colouring and thin yellow strips, 2) temporal range is included in the bar, rather than floating in front, and 3) space is shared equally, solving the large K but cut-off N issue.
PreЄ | Є | O | S | D | C | P | T | J | K | Pg | N |
What are your thoughts? Ypna ( talk) 13:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Having taken the points you mention into consideration, I produced this second design. It's mainly a fresher tweak of the current design. I have:
Also, purely for the purpose of design, I removed the borders around the boxes. The text may need to be enlarged slightly. Ypna ( talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link the "Ma" text to Megaannum. Sagie ( talk) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I recently attempted to add my first geologic range template to the article on Entoliidae. They originated in the middle Triassic and exist today. I went over the template, and was not certain how to indicate this... Middle Triassic|Neogene? Middle Triassic|0? I did some experimenting, and it looks like if I used "Middle Triassic|Neogene", that would indicate that the animal became extinct in the Neogene, which is not what I meant. Using a zero at least appeared to get the range bar out to the end of the Neogene section, but I wanted to template to "say" that the animal was still in existence, not just say, "Middle Triassic-0" (which, as words go, doesn't mean much to a non-geologist). I finally took a shot at using "Middle Triassic|Present", and it looks like I got what I wanted: a bar that goes all the way out to the end of the Neogene era. But it would have been really helpful if I didn't have to guess at how to get this outcome. Could someone add some text to the template usage page that specifically states that the use of the word "Present" will draw the range box out through the Quarternary? Thanks! KDS4444 Talk 04:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
fossil range|Devonian|Recent}}
.{{
Geological range}}
are those that are recognised by the {{
next period}}
template. Its documentation is also incomplete, but it permits several ways of indicating that the lifeform is not extinct: you used "Present", which is one of the valid values; you could also have used "Holocene", "Quaternary", "Cenozoic", "Phanerozoic", "Now", or "Recent". These are all interpreted in the same way within {{
Geological range}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a space before "Ma" so that this
{{
fossilrange|231.4|0}}
shows a space between the "0" and the "Ma" (which it is not currently doing, at least in my browser).— DocWatson42 ( talk) 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it looks as if there's a new global bug in this template as every page I've looked at seems to have gone wrong. Can't we just revert to how it was at the last good status? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ Sadads: The non-sandbox version of Template:Period_start has been fixed, so it should be good to remove the temporary fixes put in place today. Please undo both changes made today, November 17. Mamyles ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
I mostly work on af.wiki and I created two more versions of this template there, see its use on af:Necrolestes or af:Ornithischia e.g. and compare it to the corresponding pages here. The idea is that for many more recent fossils from the cenozoic and even mesozoic the standard time scale is so large that it becomes difficult to see when they lived. See e.g. af:Sjabloon:Meso-Caenozoic 200px and af:Sjabloon:Caenozoic 200px for the zoomed ranges. It would be better to integrate this in one template with if statements, but I did not want to mess up a template I don't quite understand so I just created seperate modified versions. Perhaps this is something someone might want to do here better? Af.wiki is small and we have to make do with what we have in terms of manpower, so I think we'll just keep it as it is now.
Btw, I just made up abbreviations for periods like paleocene, eocene etc. Does anyone know if there are any standard official abbreviations for those? Jcwf ( talk) 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Geological range/linked has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request: The template should link Ludlow (the town) to Ludlow (the epoch) when it is given in the linked Geological range. Right now it can only link to the town of Ludlow, any other value to work around this throw unreadable stacked red errors.
Code example: | fossil_range = {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian}}
Workaround: A workaround at the moment is to place a replace statement around the taxobox replacing Ludlow with Ludlow epoch|Ludlow.
Example:
{{replace|{{automatic taxobox
| fossil_range = {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian}}
| image = Zosterophyllum.JPG
| image_caption = ''Zosterophyllum'' species fossils
}}|Ludlow|Ludlow epoch{{!}}Ludlow}}
Robin De Schepper (
talk) 13:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Geological range/linked/sandbox|Ludlow (epoch)|Devonian}}
will now display as:|link1=
and |link2=
, that can be used to supply the link(s) when they are different from the displayed name of the geological period(s).|link1=
and |link2=
to the template, so {{
Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian|link1=Ludlow epoch}}
will now display as:{{
Geological range}}
works. Its first three parameters are: first appearance, last appearance, text to display. So you can use {{Geological range |Ludlow |Devonian |[[Ludlow (epoch)|Ludlow]]–[[Devonian]]}}, which when put into a centre-aligned environment produces:{{
Geological range/linked}}
which
Ahecht wrote as {{Geological range/linked |Ludlow |Devonian |link1=Ludlow (epoch)}}, which produces the same output:Some of the date ranges appear to be shifted too far to the left of the time scale. This was seen in Leonerasaurus, and the same applies to Gracilisuchus. I feel that this may be a problem with the placement of the arrow. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 04:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This template needs a design overhaul for mobile users. There are many corrections that could make it both easier to read and understand:
– Adamilo ( talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I'm getting the same error in the article " Eukaryote" as I described above in § Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2015. I can now edit the template, but my test did not fix the problem, so I'm turning to the experts. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this (again)? — DocWatson42 ( talk) 04:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
Long fossil range}}
, which had an ordinary space before "Ma", which gets removed, instead of a non-breaking space. It's fixed now.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have been working on a new update for this template on Turkish Wikipedia, and now we have a working geological range template with just one module. No need any other templates and also {{ long fossil range}}. So I combined the two templates without the need to add any new parametres. It simply detects the given numbers or period names and act on them. So I implemented the same module here: Module:Geological range and the examples can be seen here: User:HastaLaVi2/sandbox2. Should we update the template here? ~ Z ( m) 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Geological range|show}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
~ Z ( m) 12:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add required code to /sandbox and provide some tests as /testcases to ensure it works as intended. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
^ I want to explore this unaddressed comment from ten years ago. (I created a new section, because I don't know if we frown on bumping old threads or what.) It's true the blue to dark-blue T on a purple background is low contrast. I drafted up some comparisons:
1. (Unmodified):
2. Lighter purple:
3. White T instead:
4. White Ꞓ, O, D, C, T, J:
(Number 4 is actually the full CGMW color palette, which the template's based off of anyway.) Number 3 is a small change, and number 4 takes a more extensive change. What say the community and the wiki experts?
EDIT: I'd like to add that the colored links become even harder to read on my Android phone. Cambrian, Ordovician, and Carboniferous in particular, but none of the font colors contrast well. I'm experimenting with the colors on User:JavaRogers, where the symbols are either white or black. The current result is:
——— JavaRogers ( talk) 00:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a third type of Geological range, which shows only Cenozoic. Many mammal species live or lived in Cenozoic, which spans only two short periods at the end of the scale. I think it's better to make third template showing only Cenozoic. Jack Jackie Pomi ( talk) 05:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can anyone please change [[Megaannum|Ma]] to [[Year#Megaannus|Ma]]? 2A00:801:713:EE68:F149:7E8B:40A6:7E59 ( talk) 10:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure of how feasible this is, but could the template be altered so that when the given range is wholly within a single era, it zooms in and shows only that era's subdivisions. Currently, for most uses of the template I come across, the given range is so short that only an unhelpful line shows up on the template as it currently is. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 20:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Geological range template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Showing time graphically is a good idea, but why is most of Earth's history lumped together as the Precambrian? There's a big difference between the Archean and the Ediacaran, especially when you look at microbial taxa. Is it too late to modify the template to divide up the vast swath of Precambrian time? Cephal-odd ( talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
In the article titled Schinderhannes bartelsi, I found this, with a conspicuous punctuation error:
So I was going to edit it to say the following instead:
But I couldn't find that in the article when I edited it; instead I found this:
Somewhere within Wikipedia one must be able to find the information that needs to get edited. Where is it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
while generally a good template, i have to say that this is far from obvious for the casual user with no knowledge of geology. There should be a short explanation of what this means, linked via a ? or something. Also the visualisation is not ideal. I noticed it first on Porpoise, where the green bar to the very right is only noticable when searching for it. As said before, for the casual user this is just a colorful bar, nothing else. This is especially problematic when, as is the case in Porpoise, the explanation above says "Middle Miocene–Recent", but the bar does not have anything called Miocene, just a "N", which after clicking turns out to be Neocene, where you then find out that "Under the current proposal of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the Neogene would consist of the Miocene, and Pliocene epochs.". In short, the casual user cannot be expected to learn about Geology before getting anything out of a template that seems to be on every animal page. Quick fix: at a timeline under the bar with some indication how many million years ago the geological periods represent. Also make the green bar more obvious in some way or another.-- ExpImp talk con 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
To add to previous commenter's observations, this box just looks retarded when viewed with any typeface size beyond 8 points at moderate resolutions (such as the 1440x900 resolution of my laptop with which I am viewing a page using the {fossil range| template right now.
In short, it looks atrocious. user:akulkis 76.243.106.37 ( talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: this template can be very well used to display the age of geological units. Only thing that doesn't fit is the name of the template; it could be expanded to something more general, like "age range". Thanks. -- Qyd ( talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just added a taxobox to Ambilobeia, which lived in the Olenekian (early Triassic). This template recognises that name, but displays it at the end of the Permian (at least on my browser). The same appears to be true of Induan:
I don't know whether the error lies with Firefox, {{ fossil_range}} or {{ period_start}}, but I was hoping someone reading this might. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Two days ago I took the liberty of altering the width of the timeline from 200 pixels to 220 pixels, simply because it looked crowded (the 'PG' and 'N' barely fitted into their respective boxletts). Now someone has to adapt the fossil range-template please! -- Gliese876 ( talk) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ Fossil range/bar}} uses the HTML id "bar". When called multiple times, this results in duplicate ids, which causes a markup validation error. Example: W3C markup validation for Porbeagle.
{{ Fossil range/marker}} uses the HTML id "Range-border" with the same issues.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about other people's monitors but on mine the blue foreground against a purple background makes it very hard to see the letter "T" for Triassic. Perhaps changing it to a lighter color might help improve visibility. -- œ ™ 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(Note: this is not applicable to non-taxobox articles.)
It's been pointed out that Lazarus taxa such as the coelacanth are difficult to accurately express the period of existence using the fossil range template. We're proposing the template be modified to indicate the known period of existence, using both fossil and living specimens as references for solid bars and transparency for the hypothesized existence. This would mean extant creatures with fossil range templates would have the solid bar would extend to 0 Ma and that the text "fossil range" would need to be changed to something different, such as "known time span". Suggestions are welcome, as are comments, questions, and criticism of the overall idea. Members of the relevant WikiProjects are being notified of this RfC. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The "Quaternary" time period was recently added to this template. Should it stay? 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I know I'm not one to talk, but I'm not convinced this edit, which adds "Q" to the time scale following "N", was well-thought-out or supported by more than one editor. Could someone provide rationale for this? Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on the addition, but if it's going to be added then the bar needs to be fixed so that "Recent" makes it go to the end. -- Yzx ( talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Quaternary (what a horrible name considering there was never a Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary Period, by the way)" There used to be! The Tertiary is a recent loss (K-T boundary?) and the Quaternary is the last holdout from this much older system when the earth was thought to be much younger. Secondary pretty much corresponded to the modern concept of Mesozoic, by the way. Anyway I think we should stick to whatever the current ICS says, since it's not america-centric, is well-respected among researchers and is citable. MMartyniuk ( talk) 13:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Based on this [1] it looks like Quaternary suffered the same kind of controversy and follow-up vote as Pluto, and Wiki followed the official commission on that one by labeling Pluto as a dwarf planet. Why not here? MMartyniuk ( talk) 13:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC) One more thing: the ICS does recognize the Hadean, just labels it as informal as it does not have any definition or subdivisions. MMartyniuk ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Ed here. I can't tell whether this discussion has been resolved. Is there any sort of consensus on whether it is appropriate for us to include the Quaternary? Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder that whenever you add the RFC template to a page, you need to add an actual "question" or summary of the issue, followed by a signature or timestamp. Otherwise, the bot will pick up whatever the next random comment is, and folks looking at the list will have no idea at all what you want. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
See Leonerasaurus-- 199 Ma should appear in the blue range, not the purple range. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Could the Namurian be added to the geological range template please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 August 2011
Done
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Also to be added if possible the Paleocene North American Faunal Stages
Torrejonian,
Tiffanian, and
Clarkforkian. --
Kev
min
§ 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
Bob the WikipediaN (
talk •
contribs) 18:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Example InfoBox on the Template Page, the "incertae" in "incertae sedis" should be capitalized (IE "Incertae sedis"). In a table (and an InfoBox is in fact a special kind of table), the first word in each cell should be capitalized as a matter of aesthetic decorum. It's a lot like the first word on a bullet point. In any Computer Technology or Computer Concepts class, they teach one these things in MS PowerPoint (R) and Word (R), and Wikipedia is visually not unlike a word processor. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Spaces are needed around the dash, especially because each part of the range is often made of several words. Please insert a non-breaking space (
) before the dash, and a space after the dash.
I was going to fix that myself, but it's stupidly locked.
Thank you.
-- Nnemo ( talk) 11:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}}
Please wrap {{{prefix}}}
, {{{3}}}
, and {{{PS}}}
in <span style="display:inline-block;">...</span>
as discussed at
Template talk:Automatic taxobox#arbitrary editing break. That is, the entire template should be
<includeonly><span style="display:inline-block;">{{{prefix|}}}</span><span style="display:inline-block;">{{{3|{{{text|{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|–{{{2|}}}}}{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|| Ma}}}}}}}}</span>{{{ref|{{{reference|{{{refs|{{{references|}}}}}}}}}}}} <span style="display:inline-block;">{{{PS|{{{ps|}}}}}}</span>{{Phanerozoic 220px}}<!-- Fossil range marker --><div name=Range style="margin:0 auto; line-height:0; clear:both; width:220px; padding:0px; height:8px; overflow:visible; background-color:transparent; position:relative; top:-4px; z-index:100;">{{fossil range/marker|{{#if:{{{earliest|}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{earliest}}}}}|{{period start|{{{earliest}}}}}|{{{earliest}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{period start|{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}}}|{{#if:{{{latest|}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{latest}}}}}|{{period end|{{{latest}}}}}|{{{latest}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{period end|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}|42<!-- This determines the opacity of the bar-->}} {{fossil range/marker|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{period start|{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{period end|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}} </div Range> </div Timeline-row></includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc}}</noinclude>
Gorobay ( talk) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ever since the title of the taxobox section that contains this template was changed from "Fossil range" to "Temporal range" I have followed the lead of other editors in using "Present" instead of "Recent" to describe extant taxa. In my and apparently others opinions, it makes no sense to describe the temporal range of say, Mammalia, as "Jurassic - Recent" when I know that mammals exist more than "recently". "Recent" made sense when the field was Fossil Range as it is possible to describe subfossils as recent where Holocene may not have been appropriate. The field has been labelled "Temporal Range" in the taxobox template for over a year. I recently had several of these edits reverted, however, so any comments? MMartyniuk ( talk) 16:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to get my fossil range to display from Triassic to Oligocene. I put in earliest=Triassic and latest=Oligocene, but I got an error and cannot see what I did wrong. Thanks. -- AfadsBad ( talk) 15:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the template apparently isn't good at handling time ranges due to uncertainty. In this particular case I can't find any date estimate narrower than 76 to 72 mya. I would suggest that some way of displaying this uncertainty without having to arbitrarily select a date is needed. Perhaps a |uncertain
parameter that prefixed "
somewhen between" and infixed "to" between the range numbers and would also fade out the bar. --
Dracontes (
talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Templates for narrower time spans would be probably useful, for example only Neogene or even only Quaternary. Because many animals lived in very narrow time span and their graphs are reduced to a tiny line, like those ones extinct at the end of last glacial period. Darekk2 ( talk) 01:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Below is a comparison between the current design and my proposal. It is, of course, just a mock-up and not a working template. The new design is slightly narrower, and yet (I think) it is also more legible because: 1) it lacks unnecessary colouring and thin yellow strips, 2) temporal range is included in the bar, rather than floating in front, and 3) space is shared equally, solving the large K but cut-off N issue.
PreЄ | Є | O | S | D | C | P | T | J | K | Pg | N |
What are your thoughts? Ypna ( talk) 13:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Having taken the points you mention into consideration, I produced this second design. It's mainly a fresher tweak of the current design. I have:
Also, purely for the purpose of design, I removed the borders around the boxes. The text may need to be enlarged slightly. Ypna ( talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link the "Ma" text to Megaannum. Sagie ( talk) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I recently attempted to add my first geologic range template to the article on Entoliidae. They originated in the middle Triassic and exist today. I went over the template, and was not certain how to indicate this... Middle Triassic|Neogene? Middle Triassic|0? I did some experimenting, and it looks like if I used "Middle Triassic|Neogene", that would indicate that the animal became extinct in the Neogene, which is not what I meant. Using a zero at least appeared to get the range bar out to the end of the Neogene section, but I wanted to template to "say" that the animal was still in existence, not just say, "Middle Triassic-0" (which, as words go, doesn't mean much to a non-geologist). I finally took a shot at using "Middle Triassic|Present", and it looks like I got what I wanted: a bar that goes all the way out to the end of the Neogene era. But it would have been really helpful if I didn't have to guess at how to get this outcome. Could someone add some text to the template usage page that specifically states that the use of the word "Present" will draw the range box out through the Quarternary? Thanks! KDS4444 Talk 04:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
fossil range|Devonian|Recent}}
.{{
Geological range}}
are those that are recognised by the {{
next period}}
template. Its documentation is also incomplete, but it permits several ways of indicating that the lifeform is not extinct: you used "Present", which is one of the valid values; you could also have used "Holocene", "Quaternary", "Cenozoic", "Phanerozoic", "Now", or "Recent". These are all interpreted in the same way within {{
Geological range}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a space before "Ma" so that this
{{
fossilrange|231.4|0}}
shows a space between the "0" and the "Ma" (which it is not currently doing, at least in my browser).— DocWatson42 ( talk) 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it looks as if there's a new global bug in this template as every page I've looked at seems to have gone wrong. Can't we just revert to how it was at the last good status? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
@ Sadads: The non-sandbox version of Template:Period_start has been fixed, so it should be good to remove the temporary fixes put in place today. Please undo both changes made today, November 17. Mamyles ( talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi
I mostly work on af.wiki and I created two more versions of this template there, see its use on af:Necrolestes or af:Ornithischia e.g. and compare it to the corresponding pages here. The idea is that for many more recent fossils from the cenozoic and even mesozoic the standard time scale is so large that it becomes difficult to see when they lived. See e.g. af:Sjabloon:Meso-Caenozoic 200px and af:Sjabloon:Caenozoic 200px for the zoomed ranges. It would be better to integrate this in one template with if statements, but I did not want to mess up a template I don't quite understand so I just created seperate modified versions. Perhaps this is something someone might want to do here better? Af.wiki is small and we have to make do with what we have in terms of manpower, so I think we'll just keep it as it is now.
Btw, I just made up abbreviations for periods like paleocene, eocene etc. Does anyone know if there are any standard official abbreviations for those? Jcwf ( talk) 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Geological range/linked has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request: The template should link Ludlow (the town) to Ludlow (the epoch) when it is given in the linked Geological range. Right now it can only link to the town of Ludlow, any other value to work around this throw unreadable stacked red errors.
Code example: | fossil_range = {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian}}
Workaround: A workaround at the moment is to place a replace statement around the taxobox replacing Ludlow with Ludlow epoch|Ludlow.
Example:
{{replace|{{automatic taxobox
| fossil_range = {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian}}
| image = Zosterophyllum.JPG
| image_caption = ''Zosterophyllum'' species fossils
}}|Ludlow|Ludlow epoch{{!}}Ludlow}}
Robin De Schepper (
talk) 13:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
Geological range/linked/sandbox|Ludlow (epoch)|Devonian}}
will now display as:|link1=
and |link2=
, that can be used to supply the link(s) when they are different from the displayed name of the geological period(s).|link1=
and |link2=
to the template, so {{
Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian|link1=Ludlow epoch}}
will now display as:{{
Geological range}}
works. Its first three parameters are: first appearance, last appearance, text to display. So you can use {{Geological range |Ludlow |Devonian |[[Ludlow (epoch)|Ludlow]]–[[Devonian]]}}, which when put into a centre-aligned environment produces:{{
Geological range/linked}}
which
Ahecht wrote as {{Geological range/linked |Ludlow |Devonian |link1=Ludlow (epoch)}}, which produces the same output:Some of the date ranges appear to be shifted too far to the left of the time scale. This was seen in Leonerasaurus, and the same applies to Gracilisuchus. I feel that this may be a problem with the placement of the arrow. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 04:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This template needs a design overhaul for mobile users. There are many corrections that could make it both easier to read and understand:
– Adamilo ( talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I'm getting the same error in the article " Eukaryote" as I described above in § Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2015. I can now edit the template, but my test did not fix the problem, so I'm turning to the experts. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this (again)? — DocWatson42 ( talk) 04:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
Long fossil range}}
, which had an ordinary space before "Ma", which gets removed, instead of a non-breaking space. It's fixed now.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have been working on a new update for this template on Turkish Wikipedia, and now we have a working geological range template with just one module. No need any other templates and also {{ long fossil range}}. So I combined the two templates without the need to add any new parametres. It simply detects the given numbers or period names and act on them. So I implemented the same module here: Module:Geological range and the examples can be seen here: User:HastaLaVi2/sandbox2. Should we update the template here? ~ Z ( m) 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
<includeonly>{{#invoke:Geological range|show}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
~ Z ( m) 12:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add required code to /sandbox and provide some tests as /testcases to ensure it works as intended. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
^ I want to explore this unaddressed comment from ten years ago. (I created a new section, because I don't know if we frown on bumping old threads or what.) It's true the blue to dark-blue T on a purple background is low contrast. I drafted up some comparisons:
1. (Unmodified):
2. Lighter purple:
3. White T instead:
4. White Ꞓ, O, D, C, T, J:
(Number 4 is actually the full CGMW color palette, which the template's based off of anyway.) Number 3 is a small change, and number 4 takes a more extensive change. What say the community and the wiki experts?
EDIT: I'd like to add that the colored links become even harder to read on my Android phone. Cambrian, Ordovician, and Carboniferous in particular, but none of the font colors contrast well. I'm experimenting with the colors on User:JavaRogers, where the symbols are either white or black. The current result is:
——— JavaRogers ( talk) 00:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I think we need a third type of Geological range, which shows only Cenozoic. Many mammal species live or lived in Cenozoic, which spans only two short periods at the end of the scale. I think it's better to make third template showing only Cenozoic. Jack Jackie Pomi ( talk) 05:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can anyone please change [[Megaannum|Ma]] to [[Year#Megaannus|Ma]]? 2A00:801:713:EE68:F149:7E8B:40A6:7E59 ( talk) 10:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I am unsure of how feasible this is, but could the template be altered so that when the given range is wholly within a single era, it zooms in and shows only that era's subdivisions. Currently, for most uses of the template I come across, the given range is so short that only an unhelpful line shows up on the template as it currently is. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 ( talk) 20:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)