Talk:Paleogene

	Geology portal Talk:Paleogene 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.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Geological periods task force (assessed as High-importance).

Palaeontology Top‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

AMK152's Geotimeboxes

AMK152 proposed in edits of 27 December 2006 a geotimebox for this article. I feel that the box information that is appropriate for the article is already in the footer, and that other information can be supplied where important, by links from the text. See discussion at Template talk:Geotimebox. --Bejnar 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paleogene symbol

What is the abbreviation for Paleogene--is it Pg ?

For technical usage, the US Geological Survey and others use a capital P with a small capital G attached to it as shown in this PDF - [1]. Without special fonts you can't do it, so Pg probably will serve. However, I have also seen it as PE. Just explain whatever you use at first usage, and then be consistent and non-conflicting with other symbols such as P for Permian, double-barred P for Pennsylvanian.... Cheers Geologyguy 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to comment above, the symbol for Paleogene (the geologic time period) used by the USGS is PG (the G is in small caps). Do not mistake this for Paleocene (the geologic time epoch), which is properly abbreviated PE (with a script small caps E). Nobody should be using PE for Paleogene. This is (apparently) a common error. The PDF in the comment above is the only correct usage; no explanation of usage is needed. JAD- 09 JUL 201496.10.1.100 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and oil industry

It turns out that the Paleogene is of specific relevance in the oil industry, where it's got a lot of discussion and a high profile.

I started to create an article Lower Tertiary,but Paleogene is the identical period. So I've added a section on Geology of the Paleogene, which should have considerable information to add by someone knowledgeable, mainly as a place to add the oil industry related knowledge of the geology of that period.

I'm fairly sure it belongs in this article and hopefully others will expand the article to cover other aspects of the Paleogene.....

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Srewed up ?

Page is screwed in my firfox 3. Pls check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.101.235 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's happened here, maybe a change to a template? Don't know if it's just Firefox. Mikenorton (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily hid the template causing the problem. Mikenorton (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spelling

Palæogene is offered up as an alternative but the commonly encountered British English spelling is Palaeogene - I don't recall coming across Palæogene. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key Events

This page needs a 'Key Events' table. A Template is available to make it look like all the other Era time periods. i.e. Template:Jurassic graphical timeline -- Denton22 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grasses statement

Can someone with expertise correct the mention of grasses as evolved in this period. Grasses are now known from the Late Cretaceous. If in trouble to find references have a look at the article on Poaceae (true grasses) and look at the references cited there. Learningnave (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on grasses evolving during this period should be removed. Aside from being uncited, it is in conflict with what the properly cited Poaceae page says about when grasses evolved. Philip72 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the writer here may have conflated the evolution of the grasses (Mesozoic?) with their expansion to create large rangelands (Cenozoic). There's something about this in this paper, but I'm sure there are much better sources (I know of this one because of my interest in the marine silicon cycle). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification required

. Also, could you correct the statement in the 'flora and fauna' section of the 'Palaeogene' article that reads, "....Those that took to the oceans became modern cetaceans, while those that took to the trees became primates, the group to which humans belong..." . The way it reads, it suggests all mamals that took to the oceans became cetaceans and that all the mamals that took to the trees became primates. Examples to the contrary abound. Consider manatees and sea lions. Consider squirrels and sloths. 2600:8807:8787:7700:A080:B7B4:96A1:1829 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)BGriffin[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paleogene. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929021358/http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?pageid=3339&navid=2113 to http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?pageid=3339&navid=2113

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geology and oil (revisited)

The material in this section is very much focussed on one small part of the globe and ought perhaps to be removed to another location. The alternative would be to add corresponding material for everywhere else which would be unwieldy. Geopersona (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reached the same conclusion before seeing your comment, and have removed the section entirely. It's based on a single stakeholder sheet from Halliburton; and while I have nothing particularly against Halliburton, a little Internet digging confirmed that while there are significant Paleogene oil reserves in the Gulf, they are not notably more important that reserves from the Mesozoic. Nor is the Paleogene particularly notable for its oil reserves worldwide, and this is an article of worldwide scope. The section clearly violates WP:BALASP.

This does raise the question of what we might to do expand the article with a geology section. When I think "Permian", I think "redbeds." When I think "Cretaceous", I think "chalk and shale". (Yes, my house sits on what was the shore of the Western Interior Seaway 80 million years ago.) When I think "Carboniferous", I think ... marine limestone. (I'm odd that way.) And of course coal. When I think "Paleogene", nothing similar comes to mind, but I'm open to suggestions. I do think of the Mid-Tertiary Ignimbrite Flareup, but that's almost as parochial as Gulf oil. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mdbdn

P 106.197.47.250 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P imjust existing (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Oligocene geography.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific journal

This article has a multitude of problems and should certainly be considered for rewriting.

Wikipedia is not suppose to be written as a textbook or scientific journal and as written this would be a good example. In the first extremely long run-on sentence the word "Mya", link in parentheses, is shown as the word annum that redirects to year. The word "annum" is actually covered in the section "Symbols and abbreviations" and one would have to read down to the subsection "Abbreviations for "years ago". This includes a "Further information": Before Present with an "anchor|kya" in editing mode. Looking at the "wikitable" in Abbreviations for "years ago" it can be seen that Mya is listed under "Non-SI abbreviations", short for million years ago --or-- Mega years ago, with a definition of "Time ago in Ma" and examples of "event and (time)". This includes

Appearance of Homo sapiens (Around 200 kya)
Out-of-Africa migration (Around 60 kya)
Last Glacial Maximum (Around 20 kya)
Neolithic Revolution (Around 10 kya)

I was familiar with the acronym "Mya", many may not be, but surely using unintroduced, unlinked, and deprecated "academic terminology" (acronyms) should be avoided.

I was actually looking for some information about the rather specific unsourced last part of the sentence, "the Neogene Period 23.03 Mya". While looking I even ran across a link "(look for BIPM in Wikipedia.org )", which is to International Bureau of Weights and Measures, that presented absolutely no help.

It seems that somewhere there would be a link, more easy to find, that might provide a definition like (if correct):

Mya (unit) In astronomy, geology, and paleontology, mya or "m.y.a." is an acronym for million years ago. This abbreviation is commonly used as a unit of time to denote length of time before the present or "B.P." (before AD 1950). Specifically, one mya is equal to 10 6 years ago. In more simplistic writing it appears 1 mya is around 1 million years ago.
- However, at the end of the wikitable is the sourced content: "Use of "mya" and "bya" is deprecated in modern geophysics, the recommended usage being "Ma" and "Ga" for dates Before Present, but "m.y." for the durations of epochs. This ad hoc distinction between "absolute" time and time intervals is somewhat controversial amongst members of the Geological Society of America" The controversy is explained here. I do see other articles using Mya.

Starting in the "Climate" section Ma enjoys considerable use but there are no links. "Chicxulub impact" is used and I surmise could be linked; Chicxulub impact. "Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene Cool Interval" is introduced with no link or way to compare it to the "Chronology" chart in the infobox.

Content: "...the steady cooling and drying of the Late Cretaceous-Early Palaeogene Cool Interval (LKEPCI) that had spanned the last two stages of the Late Cretaceous continued.", is mentioned with no links

In the third paragraph "Early Oligocene Glacial Maximum (Oi1)" and "200 kyr." are introduced. Now Kyr needs to be looked up.
In the last sentence of the "Palaeogeography" section: The 1.2 Myr cycle of obliquity amplitude modulation governed eustatic sea level changes on shorter timescales, with periods of low amplitude coinciding with intervals of low sea levels and vice versa. What! This is evidence of scientific mumbo jumbo that would mean absolutely nothing to anyone not "well-versed in the topic's field".

Conclusion: This is as a C-class article but it is actually a glorified "Start-class". Without going any farther, there is not much listed under "Scientific journals:" (#7), in "What Wikipedia is not", that the article does not violate.

I don't know if an expert could straighten it out, the article should be considered a candidate for reducing to a stub, or we should consider blowing it up and starting over. There is likely little doubt the article is written to follow: "each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material". -- Otr500 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it, but will take a while... Silica Cat (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Flora and Fauna

    The Flora and Fauna part of this page should be more interesting, showing specific interesting species at the time. Like the Cambrian page, and others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.86.125.130 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]