Talk:Cambrian (geology): Difference between revisions
imported>Thomas Simmons No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Regarding reference to [http://www.earth-time.org/ EarthTime]: This organisation has been referred to by some of the Subcommission reports and is used as a coordinating body to calibrate earth history. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 20:19, 22 April 2007 (CDT) + 18 hours | Regarding reference to [http://www.earth-time.org/ EarthTime]: This organisation has been referred to by some of the Subcommission reports and is used as a coordinating body to calibrate earth history. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 20:19, 22 April 2007 (CDT) + 18 hours | ||
== "Cambrian" == | |||
I'm no geologist but I am a stickler for how English is used. The first sentence says, "The Cambrian is both a system of strata and a period of time." This is a claim about how the word "Cambrian" is used. The Cambrian ''itself'' is not ''both'' one thing and the other (as if ambiguous words created ambiguous entities), but rather, the ''word'' "Cambrian" ''names'' both those things. I think it would be better in any case to define one, and then the other, if you are going to have an article that includes both. But I do wonder whether it would be better to have an article titled [[Cambrian Period]] and another titled [[Cambrian Strata]]. Surely there are facts about one that are not immediately relevant to the other. Isn't it the case that you're combining the articles mainly because they share the word "Cambrian" in common? But the strata is very different from the period. | |||
I appreciate the work--please don't get me wrong, ''I'' couldn't create this without doing lots of research--but this article, and others about other eras or periods, should be more accessible than this one is at present. They should open with information that helps "locate" the period with respect to things people might be familiar with--such as dinos, or sabertooth tigers, or primordial ooze. If there is some biological or geological fact that really distinguishes an era, that, too, should be in the lead. The point is that in every article about an individually nameable thing (this is an individually nameable time period), after a description, we immediately turn to what is ''notable'' about it. | |||
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:13, 23 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 00:13, 23 April 2007
G'day,
Here is the Cambrian introduction. The tables are situated so that comments and discussion can be more easily placed for each series. --Thomas Simmons 19:37, 22 April 2007 (CDT) + 18 hours
At this time, getting specifics about the Cambrian from the ICS is problematic since the web site for the Cambrian Subcommision is not up. Most if not all the other sources available are referring to the older nomenclature or regional nomenclature. The officla and globally defined information as such will have to come in as it is available. --Thomas Simmons 19:43, 22 April 2007 (CDT) + 18 hours
Regarding reference to EarthTime: This organisation has been referred to by some of the Subcommission reports and is used as a coordinating body to calibrate earth history. --Thomas Simmons 20:19, 22 April 2007 (CDT) + 18 hours
"Cambrian"
I'm no geologist but I am a stickler for how English is used. The first sentence says, "The Cambrian is both a system of strata and a period of time." This is a claim about how the word "Cambrian" is used. The Cambrian itself is not both one thing and the other (as if ambiguous words created ambiguous entities), but rather, the word "Cambrian" names both those things. I think it would be better in any case to define one, and then the other, if you are going to have an article that includes both. But I do wonder whether it would be better to have an article titled Cambrian Period and another titled Cambrian Strata. Surely there are facts about one that are not immediately relevant to the other. Isn't it the case that you're combining the articles mainly because they share the word "Cambrian" in common? But the strata is very different from the period.
I appreciate the work--please don't get me wrong, I couldn't create this without doing lots of research--but this article, and others about other eras or periods, should be more accessible than this one is at present. They should open with information that helps "locate" the period with respect to things people might be familiar with--such as dinos, or sabertooth tigers, or primordial ooze. If there is some biological or geological fact that really distinguishes an era, that, too, should be in the lead. The point is that in every article about an individually nameable thing (this is an individually nameable time period), after a description, we immediately turn to what is notable about it.
--Larry Sanger 00:13, 23 April 2007 (CDT)