Jump to content

Talk:Riphean age

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Riphean (stage))

Requested move 1 February 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Standardize disambiguators for divisions of geological time based on the 2014 precedent for Mississippian (geology) and Pennsylvanian (geology). Also included are two paleoclimate ages of the Holocene, not included in the geologic time scale. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 05:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about a few of these – "Llandovery Epoch" seems like a good natural disambiguation. No objection to standardizing the existing parenthetical disambiguators. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Geology has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: How sure are we that none of these are the primary topic? Even though Consistency is a criterion for article titles, having no disambiguator is preferable for primary topics (per WP:D, WP:COMMONNAME, Recognizability, and Naturalness) — hike395 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal --- according to the disambiguation naming guideline, using a more complete name ... that is unambiguous, commonly used in English ... and equally clear is typically the best to use. Following this guideline, I would propose the following:
I selected lower case for these because that appears to be the most commonly used, although I'm open to upper case also. — hike395 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this alternative proposal, but for the purpose of standardization, I think all articles about geological time periods would need to be renamed in a similar fashion. My understanding of WP:CONSISTENT is that parentheses for disambiguation don’t break consistency, but adding words that aren’t “naturally” there would (“City” as a proper noun is the example it gives for acceptable natural disambiguation). Since these articles are no different than all the others that are simply titled Devonian, Triassic, etc., I think they should all be titled Devonian period, Triassic period, etc. if this proposal is adopted. The capitalization of the second word should also be consistently either upper case or not. I2Overcome (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:CONCISE to consider --- article titles should also be short. Generally if there is no ambiguity (or if the topic is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), you also want the shortest title. I would think that would push us towards Devonian rather than Devonian Period. I'm content for the second word to be capitalized, too. — hike395 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of my business, but I know some people who strongly oppose capitalization of the second (categorizing) word of this kind: they like Ross orogeny but dislike Samfrau Orogeny and work hard towards their likes in some areas. --Altenmann >talk 08:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think it makes more sense to use parenthesis for the ones that need disambiguation. I don't think it's worth breaking consistency by adding the word "period," "stage," etc. to a few but not all of the articles for geological periods, stages, and other time units. But I'm an inexperienced, new editor, so I will differ to your judgement on how to best apply Wikipedia's article naming policies. I just thought I would contribute to this discussion since it appears to have stalled for some time. —I2Overcome (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT actually says the exact opposite of this:

The use of a parenthetical disambiguator in Georgia (country) does not support an argument that all country articles should use them, e.g. for Azerbaijan (country) or Armenia (country). This is also the case with natural disambiguation: the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to have Guadalajara City instead of Guadalajara.

jlwoodwa (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSISTENT is one reason why I proposed natural disambiguation and only for the (putatively) ambiguous cases, above. — hike395 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I misinterpreted it as referring only to cities with the proper noun “City” in their names, such as Mexico City and Salt Lake City. I did not realize that wasn’t the case with Querétaro City and Chihuahua City. I support the alternative proposal, with the stipulation that all the disambiguating words are either capitalized or not capitalized. —I2Overcome talk 21:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Oppose, will jump in to move this along. Judging by the near-complete proliferation of red links at the suggested options the names seem to be stable (especially the epochs) without confusion. Would suggest leaving them be and creating redirects to handle the suggested names. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Does not seem an improvement. Why use parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation like "Epoch" is available? For stages and periods, that provides more specific information than just "geology", although I could see an arugment to move those out of the parens too and just call it Foo stage. Existing titles seem preferable to me. SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: the alternative proposal (above) moves the disambiguators out of the parens, as you suggest. Do you still prefer the existing titles to the alternative proposal? — hike395 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the alternative proposal, yes. SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively oppose the alts. The articles refer to periods in two related but distinct scales simultaneously, and the proposed alternatives prioritize one scale over the other arbitrarily. That seems undesirable to me. The originally proposed disambiguator (geology) at least covers both of these. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support the idea of the alts, but consistency is needed between the period/epoch/age and system/series/stage frameworks. Most articles deal with both at the same time, although it seems like the chronological aspect is usually given more weight than the geological one, so I would support consistently going for (sub)period/epoch/age.
    Noting that the Boreal "age" and Atlantic "period" refer to an unrelated timescale that do not use this framework, although consistency should be found between these two. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pennsylvanian (geology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riphean_age&oldid=1296013249"