Talk:Calabrian (stage)

Start date for Pleistocene

Is anyone aware of any polls or published in-depth discussions that would suggest that "Most climatologists and geologists would prefer a start date of around 2.58 mya as more representative of the break between the Pliocene and the Pleistocene." as opposed to the "Some climatologists and geologists ..." that the article suggested before the 27 March 2007 edit? --Bejnar 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should advise you to read the literature. You could also look at [this page]. Moreover at the INQUA-2007 congress this was agreed to be the lower boundary (c. 2.6 Ma). This subject will also be a subject on the coming geological congress of IUGS in Oslo.

This pages uses an incorrect stratigraphy. The Pleistocene is part of the Quaternary. The Quaternary officially still is the last part of the Cenozoic era, following the Neogene at the same level in the hierarchy. The last publication of the Geological Timescale by Gradstein et al. was only a proposal! This is NOT the official Geological Timescale: the previous one is stil the one that is valid and should be used. INQUA does not accept this proposal concerning status and base of the Quaternary. Also the president of IUGS has forced the stratigraphical commission to accept this for the moment and wait with implementation of their proposal until this is officially accepted by the congress and ratified by the board of IUGS. INQUA expects that their opnion will be implemented in the next Geological Timescale. That is: Quaternary is a normal period or system that follows at the same hierarchological (is this correct ?) level the Neogene. The base of the Quaternary coincides with the base of the Pleistocene and starts at 2.6 and includes, therefore, the Gelasian. The Gelasian will in this subdivision be part of the Early Pleistocene.--Tom Meijer (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this page suggests that information is given on the Early Pleistocene. However, most of the text is about the upper part of the Early Pleistocene, the Calabrian. Part of this information also is nonsense (I apologize for that, sorry to say it so crude (a bad Dutch habit)). The Calabrian as well as the Early Pleistocene should both have their own pages. I don't have the time to do much on the English wiki, I need my time for the Netherlands wiki. Much of the used pictures, timelines, tables concerning the Quaternary and the Neogene provide wrong information. --Tom Meijer (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]