Talk:Eocene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

		Wikipedia for Schools
	Eocene is included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see Eocene at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

WikiProject Geology	(Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)	GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Earth sciences portal v • d • e Eocene 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Nothing links here. Will Pliocene, Oligocene etc all be moved to Pliocene Epoch etc.? Will all the redirects be cleaned up? Wetman 23:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Don't understand. Lots of things link here.

Contents 1 marsupials 2 mesonychids 3 crocdile 4 The Grande Coupure 5 responce to crocodile 6 AMK152's Geotimeboxes 7 "Misleading" tag 8 Writing Is Too Exclusive: Needs to Include Terms Understandable to the Average Non-Scientist Reader

[edit] marsupials

"Early forms of many other modern mammalian orders appeared, including bats, proboscidians, primates, rodents and marsupials." - haven't marsupials been a separate group since the Cretaceous?

[edit] mesonychids

Whales have been thought to be descended from ancestral artiodactyls, not mesonychids, since about 2001 (Gingerich). I'd have to look up the referen

[edit] crocdile

Deinosuchus died out before the Eocene.

[edit] The Grande Coupure

A plain reference seemed likely to mystify the reader. I've made it into a subsection. The Grande Coupure is currently being placed in the earliest Oligocene, however. Perhaps someone better informed than I will look over my edits and decide where the section really belongs.--Wetman 05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] responce to crocodile

sience dinosucus died out before the eocene i am going to erase the part about dinosucucus. Crocadog 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)CROCADOG

[edit] AMK152's Geotimeboxes

AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article as follows:

Eon:	Proterozoic • Phanerozoic • [[]]
Era:	Mesozoic • Cenozoic • [[]]
Period:	Cretaceous • Paleogene • Neogene
Epoch:	Paleocene • Eocene • Oligocene

I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footer, and that other extraneous information, such as previous eons, can be supplied where important, by links from the text. I removed the geotimebox and left the footer, pending discussion. --Bejnar 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Misleading" tag

To clarify: The current description of the initiation of global cooling is ambiguous and doesn't make clear the effects of the Azolla event and antarctic currents - it could be read to imply that the one caused the other. Verisimilus T 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writing Is Too Exclusive: Needs to Include Terms Understandable to the Average Non-Scientist Reader

Wikipedia is not a science journal. It is a public-use encyclopedia and cryptic scientific terminology should always be accompanied by a clearly understandable lay-explanation. For example, the opening of the article does not explain how long ago the Eocene occurred in terms that the average reader could readily understand. This not only violates the stated Wikipedia mission but is also a rude and snobbish approach to writing in this context (fine for science journals but inappropriate and inconsiderate when taking into account the fact that the average Wikipedia reader is not a scientist).

In summary, advanced science terminology is acceptable in Wikipeda, but should always be accompanied by easily understood lay-explanations targeted to the average public reader. Sean7phil (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ma is linked, I added a parenthetical note. Thanks for toning it down at the end, but please be more courteous in the future. Awickert (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)