Template talk:Geotimebox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Need for this template

I am not sure that there is a need for this template. The existing geologic time scale footers seem to fulfill the useful part that is sought to be accomlished by this template. I am also concerned that it is not well developed, and that it hasn't had peer discussion. --Bejnar 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean not well developed? Template:Yearbox, Template:Centurybox, and Template:Millenniabox are useful. This template supplies links to each individual part of Geological time. The template footers only supply links in that particular part of time it is in. Ages could also be added to the template. -AMK152 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bejnar; where the context is not given in footers, it is in links to Geologic time scale, so to a large extent the template seems to me redundant. More important, I don't think the casual reader will understand unlabeled "era before", "era following" etc., although I think some of the existing footers have some similar confusion as well. In some of the templates, it is confusing in that there is no clarification about which higher-level time element lower-level elements belong to -- Ediacaran, shown as preceding Cambrian, looks like Cambrian preceding Ordovician, and you can't tell that Ediacaran belongs to an era different from Cambrian, while Cambrian and Ordovician belong to the same era. This happens at the end/beginning of each time element that includes others, so that, as another example, on the Paleocene template, it looks like Eocene belongs to the Neogene when it does not. Also, it's probably not quite correct to use terms like Archean for Lunar geologic time periods. As for ages, they are always in the text as well as in the master time lines at Geologic time scale. Cheers Geologyguy 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The information about higher level time sequences and their successors and predecessors just is not appropriate at the top of the article. That is not what the article is about. In some cases the application of this template downgraded the existing infobox which showed the time sequences place in the Geologic time scale. The fact the the text and such existing infoboxes are linked to appropriate, related specific time sequences is not only sufficient, but thoroughly satisfactory. It does not need fixing. AMK152 mentioned Template:Yearbox, Template:Centurybox, and Template:Millenniabox. In looking at those in their actual application, they all could use graphical/formatting work as well, and at least in some implementations actually detract from the articles in which they appear. --Bejnar 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Bejnar that this template seems redundant, when set against the existing footers. We don't really need two boxes that have exactly the same content on any page. Tevildo 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Could that be fixed by making it a more generic template, so that two would never be displayed on one page?Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this template is displaying information that is not helpful. Also, it is unlike existing geologic time templates, it doesn't use the color scheme, etc. It would be better to see what is needed and fill that gap rather than try to rehabilitate this template. --Bejnar 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)