Timing

Yep! Flowers are a surprisingly late occurrence in the tree of life! Verisimilus T 09:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity.. If plants lived successfully without flowers for so long, why were flowers developed so recently? Was it the rise of insects that favored a different method of reproduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.161.128 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
"Dinosaurs" denotes the paraphyletic group that does not include birds. Verisimilus T 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
So why is dinosaurs in quotations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.156.199 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done - Quotation marks re dinosaurs removed - seems better after all - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Axis scale

Y-axis need a unit! is it in million years or billion years or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.16.235 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done - "Template - Life timeline" has now been updated => Y-axis scale is currently noted as "millions of years ago" "million years" (not "billion years") - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverse order? Chronological?

When examining this wonderful timeline at "Timeline of evolution#Basic timeline (28 October 2010)", I've always been frustrated that the order of the text-list and the graphical-timeline do not match. The text-list begins at the beginning of earth's time, and lists items chronologically. Whereas this graphical timeline begins in the present, and lists items in reverse order.

I had the same concern at Timeline of aviation, and switched that graphical-timeline around a few years ago.

I was wondering if it would be possible and acceptable to do the same here? Any support, or objections, or concerns, or offers of assistance, would be appreciated. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is customary in geology to present time in a column, read upwards. This corresponds to stratigraphy, in that the oldest events (layers) will be on the bottom. The scientific convention best reflects the nature of the information. Unfortunately, in European languages text is read down rather than up, so discussions must proceed in that direction. I highly recommend retaining the traditional graphical presentation, as this reflects how the information is presented by professional scientists, and will thus provide the best introduction to the subject for others. Here a logical, effective graphical presentation conflicts with an arbitrary lexicographical convention; it seems clear that the former should be preserved, even at the expense of some minor confusion. Would you advocate abandoning the use of superscripts to differentiate isotopes because superscripts are difficult to implement in ASCII? 206.77.151.192 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done - That pointer to stratigraphy works perfectly. As long as they're following standard conventions, I'm content. ("If you're not confused, you're not paying attention." - Tom Peters) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Larger version?

It would be great to have a larger version of this linear time line, that would be easier to read and have more detail. -Pgan002 (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done - "Template - Life timeline" has now been updated with better visuals (text and colors) and more noted detail (and related wikilinks) - any further suggested improvements welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Colors

If someone could do something about the colors, that would be great. Photosynthesis and Eukaryotic are so similar I can hardly tell them apart - that or they're the same color despite being about a billion years apart. 71.67.129.114 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done - FWIW - updated "Template - Life timeline" with better colors (and text/wikilinks as well) - blues represent lifeforms in the ocean; browns, land - should now be better - please comment if otherwise of course - or if there may be any further suggested improvements for the template - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How did Life Survive after so many catastrophes

Hi, As seen from the history of evolution, Life survived most disastrous catastrophes, how did life survive in such conditions, for eg. after Acid Rain, Few forms like algae survived...How? My next question is : Water droplets & Life evolved on Earth from Meteor rain, How did the Water droplets & Bacteria survive on hot burning Meteors...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.193.5 (talkcontribs) 06:55, 18 July 2012

 Done - replied at userpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing between fact and fiction

I find it disturbing that this article implies that it is known scientific fact what happened billions of years ago when in reality it is congecture and interpretation. Using scientific sounding words tends to give credibility to this deception. It is poor science to assign a greater level of confidence to something than the observable evidence permits. Exaggerating the evidence or representating an interpretation as an observable fact is poor science. It would be better to clearly identify what are the observable facts and what are interpretations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.154.39 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done - "Template - Life timeline" has now been updated with wikilinks to articles for the best available support of the observable facts noted on the template timeline - any further suggested improvements welcome of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How to add this template to my website?

Is there any code to add this to my website with all the hot-links? I tried right-clicking on "view page source" and am not sure if that's what to copy-paste . . . I'm not too smart with HTML. Thanks, nice work, I recently added it to Rare Earth hypothesis. Was also wondering if you could change "GOE" to Great oxygenation event. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Raquel Baranow: Thank you for posting - no problem whatsoever for Wikipedia articles - simply add, to a Wikipedia article or page, the following template code => ((Life timeline)) - (Note: adding the template with hyperlinks to a non-Wikipedia website may be more challenging - and may require including the entire Wikipedia url for each of the hyperlinks - not sure about this, but maybe an "Image Map" and "Image Map Generator" of some sort might be helpful for non-Wikipedia websites - comments from others about this welcome of course) - re adjusting "GOE" to "Great Oxygenation Event" => reduced font/wording to avoid overlapping text (Note: "Great O2 Event" or "Oxygen crisis" [an alternative name for the "Event"] seem to fit the "timeline graph" better) - hope the above comments help in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Land Life later than Cambrian explosion

Someone good at editing the colored regions should have the brown region currently labeled "land plants" and "land animals", which now appear to begin at roughly the same time as the Cambrian explosion, begin a little later, in the Silurian period, as there was was little land life before then; and perhaps these should both link to Silurian, which contains more information on when land plants and animals appeared than the Terrestrial animals article. I was able to make this change in the less detailed Timeline of natural history template, but don't see how to do it here.CharlesHBennett (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @CharlesHBennett: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - "Land life" on the current timeline (at -541 Mya) has now been newly adjusted to a later time (at -443.8 Mya) (per "Silurian" article) and is now wikilinked to "Silurian#Flora and fauna" - hope this helps in some way - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Class Aves as a subset of Dinosaur?

In modern paleontology, birds are usually seen as the sole surviving line of dinosaurs. Further, contemporary thought tends to run with the idea that all descendants of a group are necessarily part of that group. However, in our otherwise lovely life timeline, the dinosaurs terminate. Shouldn't there be a thin line extending to modern times, as modern thought dictates that birds are a surviving lineage of dinosaurs? Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:Icarosaurvus - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - agreed - however - this may not be easily done (and may not look very good - due to restricted template spacing?) with this particular "Life timeline" template (nonetheless - presenting your own test efforts with this at the "Template:Life timeline/sandbox" may be worth a review for "WP:CONSENSUS" of course) - at the moment - the template wikilink to the "Dinosaur" article, where the association of "Dinosaurs" to "Birds" is very well described (specifically, at "Dinosaur#Origin of birds" and "Origin of birds"), may be sufficient - ALSO - and perhaps more relevant to this particular discussion - and - "as posted earlier above" => "Dinosaurs" (in the "Life timeline") denotes the "paraphyletic group" that does "Not" include "birds" - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Since birds are dinosaurs that means dinosaurs are still around and this timeline should reflect it. Anything else is simply a mactual error. Abyssal (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Abyssal: FWIW - seems birds derived from dinosaurs - but the word "dinosaur" may not include birds - after all, according to "one definition", the word "dinosaur" => "a fossil reptile of the Mesozoic era, often reaching an enormous size" (similar definitions here => "Merriam-Webster" and "Oxford") - which birds are not afaik - Comments Welcome from other editors - to reach some "WP:CONSENSUS" on the issue - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
What about the definition "all of the descendants of the most recent ancestor shared by Triceratops and the common house sparrow"? Because that's the one actual scientists use. Abyssal (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Abyssal: The common dictionary definition (one likely used by most Wikipedia viewers) of "Dinosaur" seems (much?) better than a less common (& uncited?) definition imo - also - please see related comments at => "WP:EN"; "WP:UCRN"; "WP:DICTS" - IF Possible, the best wording(s) for the "((Life timeline))" may be wordings as non-technical and as brief as possible - more detail re the wording may be found at associated wikilinks - this may make the "((Life timeline))" more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1] - (also - see related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (September 3, 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved September 28, 2016.

Age of the Earth older?

The latest estimate of the age of the earth is 4568 million years, not 4540 million. Reference:[1] Bouvier, A. and Wadha, M., 2010, The age of the solar system redefined by the oldest Pb-Pb age of a meteorite inclusion: Nature Geoscience, v. 3, p. 637-641. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/full/ngeo941.html 132.241.71.81 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and 2010 reference in Nature Geoscience[1] suggesting a somewhat older determination (ie, 4568 mya) of the age of the Earth - however - a more recent 2013 reference in Scientific American[2] - and summarizing more than one such studies - found otherwise (ie, the currently noted age of 4540 mya) (also see the "Age of the Earth" article) - this age determination seems more settled in the responsible scientific literature at the moment - this may change - esp if other researchers are able to reproduce and/or support the older determination of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Bouvier, Audrey; Wadhwa, Meenakshi (August 22, 2010). "The age of the Solar System redefined by the oldest Pb–Pb age of a meteoritic inclusion". Nature Geoscience. 3: 637–641. doi:10.1038/ngeo941. Retrieved September 15, 2016.
  2. ^ Braterman, Paul S. (2013). "How Science Figured Out the Age of Earth". Scientific American. Retrieved September 15, 2016.

Transclusions

Drbogdan, you made some nice navboxes, but please stop spamming them to barely related articles (Grand Canyon...), they take up too much screen space for that. --dab (𒁳) 15:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Dbachmann: Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - the edits were made in good faith as possible improvements to the articles - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) 15:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thanks -- I do not doubt your good faith, and your timelines are well-made, I just feel they have been added in places where they are not really appropriate (navboxes are competing for screen real estate with images and article content). Thanks + happy editing, --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"Flowers" missing a link?

Why is "flowers" missing a link? Should it be added? If yes, would it lead to flower?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Adûnâi: "Flowers" in the "Life timeline" is not missing a link - "Flowers" is (and has been) wiki-linked to => "Flowering plant" - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! For some reason, it only shows for me when I hover the mouse cursor over the lower part of the word. It's somewhat hard to hit.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?

FWIW - Seems the following edit is relevant, worthy and well sourced - and should be copied to talk:

Copied from "User talk:Red Planet X (Hercolubus)#First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?":

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): Thank you for your recent edits on the ((Nature timeline)) -
QUESTION: Do you have a reference to support your noted 4.412 bya data? So far, I've found cited support for the 4.4 bya data at the following => "Origin of water on Earth#Water in the development of Earth" - and - "National Science Foundation (2001)" - Several references, "NASA (2005)" - and - "National Geographic (2001)", suggests a more recent date => 4.3 bya - in any case - Thanks again for your edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): BRIEF Followup - answer may have been found - seems the oceans may have formed as early as => at least 4.404 ± 0.008 bya - based on dating of Zircon minerals[1] - this seems to account for your noted 4.412 bya data - in any regards - Thanks again for your recent editing efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wilde S.A., Valley J.W., Peck W.H. and Graham C.M. (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6817): 175–8. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Hope this helps in some way - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Move "Orange labels: ice ages" box to top above "Quaternary", delete "Orange labels:"

This will save two words, and make the orange labels more immediately understandable. Graphics commands are too hairy for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyar25 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - @Magyar25: - Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - agreed - adjusting the old version to a newer version seems better - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Current ice age

In the image the current ice age looks like it stops before reaching the present. This is confusing, because the current ice age is still ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:172C:F900:E8AC:8969:8232:4EDD (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I've moved it 1 px up, although 0 is covered by highlight a bit. --Obsuser (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent removal of template from various pages

I have noticed this template being removed of at least three articles recently, the last example being the Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate article, another being Evidence of common descent, I fail to remember which other article, but it may have been one of the ID or creationism articles. This makes me wonder if this template was "spammed" into many articles, if there's an issue with the template, or if some of the removals were unconstructive. When it is removed the description usually is that it's off-topic or out of place. Just a note, in case someone thinks the template has a problem that can be corrected, that it should be added back somewhere, or removed from elsewhere. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR 04:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done - @PaleoNeonate: FWIW - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and presenting awareness of the issue - for my part at least - edits were made in good faith as possible improvements to articles - however - it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors - restoring worthy edits is welcome as well of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: Look, I'm tired of your template. I stumble upon this thing everywhere I go, and most of the times it is totally unrelated to the article! Holy Goo (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who created this thread, so I can't completely dismiss your comment, but considering this, please point out which off-topic article the template should be removed from, instead of vaguely complaining? Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 01:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: You want just one example? See Cambrian. The template is leaving a huge blank space and it doesn't complement anything that's contained in the section, as the cambrian period is not even in the template. How many more examples do you want? Holy Goo (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It is in the Oceanic life section (relating to the Cambrian explosion), and I do see Cambrian in that template. —PaleoNeonate - 02:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see that it was just moved there Face-smile.svg. Does this resolve the issue for this article? —PaleoNeonate - 02:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done - re "Cambrian" article concern => "relocated { {Life timeline)) to better location - to avoid blank space - and closer to the section containing "cambrian explosion" - which is noted in the template" - seems better after all - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Now it's a little better, but still, that was just one example. Holy Goo (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: FWIW - Thank you for your comments - Template is not mine, but the result of over 60 editors instead - please discuss possible improvements on talk-pages of articles for WP:CONSENSUS - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Glycolysis link?

Edit request re glycolysis

In regard of your Glycolysis article; I noticed your Life Timeline diagram, states Land Life, dinosaurs, mammals, flowers. Which isn't the most accurate representation. Instead it should begin with Land Life, fungus,plants,amphibians, reptiles, mammals, humans. Hope this helps. UnlawfulWaffle1 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this here? In glycolysis?

This does not explain the process of glycolysis. This should be moved to a separate section. Link maybe? But I want to learn about glycolysis and how it works, not the huronian period. Handsomedom (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Fix "Odd images" problem with page WP:PURGE

-- Edit request re odd images --


Copied from "Template talk:Human timeline#Edit request re odd images":


Page has been vandalized, please remove obscene photos. 121.214.61.2 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you for your note - now "fixed" - however - affected transcluded pages may need to be refreshed with a "WP:PURGE" - if interested, please see related technical discussion at the following => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HELP: Templates broken - need urgent attention?" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hope this helps in some way - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is a process whereby green plants (those that have chlorophyll) make their own food. The chlorophyll convert energy from the light rays into the what is termed as through a chemical process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.231.69.71 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your comments - please see the following link for more information about the beginnings of "photosynthesis" => "Evolution of photosynthesis#Origin" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This is just plain wrong! Photosynthesis is the processes [note the plural] in which biological systems or organisms [somewhat vague concepts] use light energy in chemical reactions for metabolic purposes. Sure plants do photosynthesize, but so do cyanobacteria and some synthetic organisms.72.16.99.93 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Flowers existed well before humans

Just look at the damn chart, people. You REALLY think humans predated flowers? 72.196.115.228 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - FWIW - a careful look at the chart shows the opposite - flowers predated humans - at the very top of the graph is a very thin line, which represents the entire span (about 0.2 million years) of modern human existence; flowers have existed for much, much longer (about 140 million years) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Life Timeline scale should be in millions of years

Isn't the Axis scale tag at the bottom of the Life Timeline supposed to be in millions of years? I don't believe life has taken 4500 billion years to evolve. Unless I'm reading into this incorrectly. Isaac868 (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - @Isaac868: Thank you for your comments - and for catching this - some unreviewed data was left over from a test using copy-paste a few hours ago - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Water

How did water (H2O) exist before Oxygen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCCE:91E0:9401:2A7A:6C78:CC37 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your question - yes - seems there was "Water" on planet "Earth" well before "Oxygen" - for details, please see the following articles => "Origin of water on Earth" and "Geological history of oxygen" - hope this helps - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
By "Oxygen" they don't mean the (atomic) element, they mean the likely/potential presence of bio-significant concentrations of molecular oxygen (O2) in biologically relevant local reservoirs (such as the atmosphere, water, or mud/silt). As contrasted to biologically significant (atmospheric and/or hydrological) global concentrations which happened later, or its presence as oxides (water, silica, etc. etc.) where it existed prior to the formation of the Earth. When the distinction needs to be made between the element O and its standard state O2, we use the term elemental oxygen and molecular oxygen. It is confusing since the standard state of the element is as molecular oxygen. In biological contexts "oxygen" typically means molecular oxygen, but is context dependent. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently confusing to most readers to merit explanation in the article itself, but a note couldn't hurt.72.16.99.93 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, I support changing the term "earliest oxygen" to "atmospheric oxygen" or "free oxygen" in order to clarify this for laypeople. There is even space to do something like "earliest atmospheric oxygen." Prometheus720 (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Jan 2019 Comments and criticisms

I like the timeline in general. I think it gets too busy at the top (near present) and that should probably be simplified. In 2018 several graphics were published showing the estimated current mass of plants, bacteria, animals, etc. with plants the major form of life (by mass). It isn't clear what, if anything the areas of the various sub-boxes represent on the timeline, if anything. What does a small box represent?!? I'd suggest that the Timeline should keep its 'pure' horizontal bands. Also, I question the use of the arrows on the right: they imply a precision and accuracy which doesn't exist. Seems to me there are 3 points for each "first": 1. First possible based on theoretical models 2. First evidence and 3. First 'generally accepted' evidence (or example). Many of the arrows should be replaced by bands stretching over millions or even hundreds of millions of years to represent our uncertainty. This would add complexity to the graphic, perhaps too much, but an arrow seems to me to be misleading in quite a few cases. The Jan 19, 2019 issue of Science had an article on Life. In that, water was claimed to potentially have existed as early as about 50 million years after the Great Impact Event (GIE) (if that hypothetical event actually happened) which would make water (and land) present at 4.46 bya. There are two other conflicting bits of information there. Zircons have carbon isotope abundances consistent with life existing at 4.1 bya (not 4.0 as in Timeline) and that article shows life "existing" (petrologically) at 3.43 bya, rather than the seemingly arbitrary 4.0 bya in the Timeline. IF the Great Impact Event happened (as the current consensus would have us believe), then the existence of water, etc. predating it is fairly irrelevant. The GIE sterilized the surface of the Earth and "baked off" the oceans then existing. In other words, Life's Timeline begins (according to this model) at the GIE which should probably (arguably) be included (at 4.47 bya).72.16.99.93 (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - seems like an entirely new, and different, template, than the present one (ie, general and basic; details and better numbers in the hyperlinked articles - by clicking the sub-boxes to the related article?) - but may be worth a consideration - perhaps you would like to develop the new and different template - the present one, transcluded in nearly 140 Wikipedia articles, has been well supported by over 80 editors, in 15 different languages, over the years - a sandbox ( at Template:Life timeline/sandbox, some other related sandbox location, or even, an off-line location ) may be a good place to experiment with such a newly created and developed template - otherwise - adjustments to the present template would require the support of many other editors for WP:CONSENSUS before editing and adjustment(s) - this may be a much longer process that may not end up being the type of template you might best like, due to a possibly long WP:CONSENSUS process with other suggested adjustments from many other editors - incidentally, should note that an earlier template version (see File:LifeTimeline-TemplateImage-20170822.png) was a bit more simplified at the top, but was later adjusted to be more detailed (see File:LifeTimeline-TemplateImage-20181222.png) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility issues and lint errors in template

@Drbogdan: I saw you reverted my last edit. I am trying to correct the accessibility issues and obsolete HTML tags. (1) By my calculations, the font size falls below 85% of default if viewed in vector, which contravenes MOS:SMALLFONT. (2) The floating elements are not in logical order, per MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT. (3) The template uses the obsolete "center" tag. I'm going to keep trying. I don't have a problem with a condensed template, so long as the issues are resolved. What do you suggest? --Bsherr (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bsherr: Thank you for your comments - they're appreciated - yes - condensed area/size is important based on past experiences with other editors (re article real estate) - not clear at the moment - is it possible to update the code, and still keep the same condensed layout? - if so, this would be ok with me at the moment - maybe a trial run(s) via of a sandbox test ( at Template:Life timeline/sandbox, some other sandbox location, or some off-line location ) may be a good place to test - if not - perhaps a pass is indicated (per WP:IAR or related) in order to maintain the present condensed coding/layout - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Thanks again for your comments - and efforts updating the "Template:Life timeline" with better coding and related - all seems ok so far with the "Template:Life timeline" imo atm - perhaps the similar "Template:Human timeline" and "Template:Nature timeline" should also be updated with the new (and better) coding and related? - in any case - Thanks again for your efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: And thank you for your courtesies. I appreciate your continuing feedback, and I'm glad the changes look good to you. The template still has and will have accessibility issues around color contrast and font size, and a rescaling of the template will be required to address them, if that is even technically possible within the existing bounds of ((Graphical timeline)). A few more are needed here, and you're right about the other timelines, they will also need changes. If you or others seeing this are able to help, that would be great. Five areas to work on: (1) Font size should be kept to the default as often as possible, but if it must be reduced, should be reduced not with HTML "small" tags, but by using a relative measurement, like a percentage, entered into the parameter "noteX-size" where X is the sequential number. (2) Font color should be kept to the default particularly when the text appears on the default grey background of the box. (3) Vertical text should be rendered using a "div" with the properties shown in my recent edit to this template. Replace the existing use of manual line breaks to render vertical text because it is not accessible to screen readers. After making this change, the "nudge" parameter values may have to be adjusted to keep the labels in the same positions. (4) If CSS style changes are made to an entire label on the timeline, it should be done using "div" and not "span". (5) "Center" tags are obsolete and should be removed or replaced with "div" as needed. A benefit of these changes is that, overall, they will reduce the size (KB) of the template, too. Thanks! --Bsherr (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bsherr: Thanks again for your comments - and detailed suggestions - if the content and presentation of the current templates may be maintained with the newly suggested coding, then all seems *entirely* ok with me at the moment - if otherwise, seems similar templates of a somewhat different (better coded?) sort may be created, and perhaps function as alternatives to the current ones (ie, rather than significantly modifying/replacing the current content and presentation, which seem to have functioned very well over the years afaik) - incidently, should note that an earlier (2016) template discussion (at "Template talk:Human timeline#Templates (Human/Life/Nature timelines) and MOS:ACCESS") briefly discussed the accessibility concern - iac - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I see that there is a discussion in progress, but the template is quite broken from a Linter and accessibility standpoint right now. Can you please revert to the 11 January 2019 version and make changes in the template's sandbox until you have worked out the problems? The template is currently causing div-span-flip errors in all articles where it is transcluded; I had that category completely cleared out in the main space until recently. Feel free to ping me with any Linter issues; I have been resolving zillions of them for many months and know a few tricks. Thanks all! – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done@Bsherr and Jonesey95: Restored "((Life timeline))" template to "earlier version (v. 13:57, 11 January 2019)" as urged by User:Jonesey95 in comments above - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And again, if I can help with Linter errors in the sandbox, ping me and I'll stop by. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Problems are back

Accessibility problems are back. The minimum font size allowed on WP pages is 85%; see MOS:FONTSIZE. Please do your experimenting in the template's sandbox, Template:Life timeline/sandbox. You may have to make the timeline taller in order to accommodate the desired text. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - restored last working version (and since updated to the current version) as suggested in the related discussion at => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Template:Life timeline needs fixing? - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: If possible, may need help with further template improvements re coding (esp linter-code related? but other better coding as well?) - seems the current version is completely functional - but may need improved coding to be even better - such improved coding may be beyond me at the moment - any help with this would be appreciated - maybe improved work on the sandbox template version would be a good start? - Thanks in advance for your help with this - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to experiment with it if you let me know what you need. I notice that the extremely small sizes are back; they should be increased to result in no smaller than 85%, as I did in the sandbox prior to your using it to restore the previous version. In my experimentation, applying a size reduction of 90% within this template resulted in just over 85% total reduction, given the other layers of templates that are involved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thank you for your reply - and comments - I'm not sure what is needed (I'm a newbie with this atm) - seems the current version is fully functional (and looks very good imo) - earlier attempts to make it better, seems to have made the template less functional (and not look as good imo) - ideally, the best template would be one that is fully functional (as the current version now seems to be) - and updated to the best coding/mos standards, but without degrading functionality (or appearance), if possible, I would think - any help with this would be appreciated of course - Thanks again for your reply and comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this was never fixed. I tidied it up today. All of the font sizes are currently showing at a minimum of 85%, per MOS:FONTSIZE. If they look too big, the timeline might need to be expanded. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Life Timeline page

I usually access Wikipedia via an iPhone 6. Can’t get a useable version of the most recent segment of the timeline, ie, the “Life” part. Research99Robin (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - and concern - new to me at the moment - perhaps others have a similar experience with this? - comments (and possible workarounds) welcome - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

68.53.1.100 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

can i please edit

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please change font color for "Molluscs"

Right now, the text "Molluscs" is nearly invisible because it's white text against a very light-colored blue. I barely noticed it. Could somebody fix this? I can't figure out how to. Thanks. BirdValiant (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I did it. I hope people appreciate the change. BirdValiant (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Fungi evolution and land colonization

I was wondering if it could be possible to add the "Earliest fungi" to the template. I'm not sure if adding the "earliest form of fungi" (the one that diverged 1.5 billion years ago; Wang et al. 1999) or the earliest land colonization of fungi on the earth ~460 mya would be better. It seems that the timeline is more about "colonization" of living groups. As the "earliest plant" means the plants that "colonized land". The late, colonization of land, would reinforce the idea that plants have colonized land in conjunction with fungi (Claire et al. 2010). Wang, D.Y.C.; Kumar, S.; Hedges, S.B. (1999). "Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 266 (1415): 163–171. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0617. PMC 1689654. PMID 10097391. Claire P. Humphreys, Peter J. Franks, Mark Rees, Martin I. Bidartondo, Jonathan R. Leake, David J. Beerling. Mutualistic mycorrhiza-like symbiosis in the most ancient group of land plants. Nature Communications, 2010; 1 (8): 103 doi:10.1038/ncomms1105 --Beausoleilmo (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beausoleilmo:  Done - added the following to the "Template:Life timeline" => add => | note40-at=-1500 | note40=Earliest fungi - per "Template talk:Life timeline#Fungi evolution and land colonization" - seems ok - please post if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

Hello. On my devices the formatting of this template seems to be quite off. I was wondering whether the following edits could help:

@Femkemilene: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - template seems to work very well (and for a very long time) on popular pc systems, including Wintel10-Chrome/Brave/Firefox/Opera browsers - what pc systems are you using? - perhaps you could try testing a newer template version at "Template:Life timeline/sandbox" (or equivalent sandbox location) and present the newer version for consideration - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I've decreased the vertical spacing in the sandbox. Before the word Hadean wasn't entirely visible (using Firefox, Internet Explorer and android), with the letter n falling off. Now half of the letter n is displayed. Would you say that is an improvement? I haven't quite figured out how to do the horizontal placement. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done @Femkemilene: Thanks for your comments - and efforts - yes - the Hadean text in the template now looks better, and has been added to the main template - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Great! Shall we do the same for the other vertical words?

I don't understand the template sufficiently well to make my first proposed change. I see in previous versions the font size of the different ice ages was smaller, and there were some longer words in the right hand side. With the current wording and font size, we should be able to shift the timeline to the right bit. There are a few millimetres right of the words earliest animals. I think it's quite an important change to make, preventing Quaternary and Cryogenian to overlap with the actual timeline. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I am the person who made the text bigger, per MOS:FONTSIZE, for accessibility. At the time, I suggested that if words didn't fit, the timeline elements that house them might have to be made larger. I don't know if that is possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done @Femkemilene and Jonesey95: ok - unable to shift entire template to right as suggested - but moved notes ("Quaternary", "Cryogenian" and others) to the right a bit - seems better - and hopefully sufficient - hope this is now *entirely* ok - if you like, you may first test the suggested vertical text in the sandbox template for consideration - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
(sorry to be so insistent, working on the FAR for Earth). I think the problem has gotten worse now? The notes should be shifted left compared to the timeline so that they overlap less. (of course, there is only space on the right, so everything should be shifted right if that were possible) Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Femkemilene and Jonesey95: - several suggested "Ice age" notes shifted left (might be max extent afaik atm) - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Too-small text reinstated twice

An editor has twice inserted text that is too small without discussion, even though I explained the limitations on this talk page. I reverted the first edit, and that change was itself reverted. I have no interest in edit-warring, but the current version of the template violates a core policy. The onus is on BirdValiant to explain why this template should violate Wikipedia's core accessibility policy (note: policy, not guideline). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This graphic has tiny text, but that's OK because its homepage File:Geological time spiral.png links to an accessible 2,424 × 2,145 pixel version.
This graphic has tiny text, but that's OK because its homepage File:Geological time spiral.png links to an accessible 2,424 × 2,145 pixel version.
The explanation is simple and already recapitulated in the edit notes: the font size as desired by User:Jonesey95 is so large that it doesn't fit in the graphic, which cuts off the words and, most glaringly, requires the truncation of "Molluscs" into "Mollus". Mind you: "Mollus" was the actual encoded text, not merely a graphical glitch; thus the previous editor(s) have deliberately chosen to mangle the information just to slavishly obey a guideline. The MOS:FONTSIZE guideline that Jonesey95 is appealing to has resulted in the graphic being mangled. As the MOS has led us to the mangled state, WP:IAR allows us--encourages us, even--to ignore it. BirdValiant (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I have explained in my note above that one accessible solution would be to make the elements of the timeline larger, rather than violating policy by making the text smaller. There may be other accessible solutions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - making the template elements larger may be a possible solution I would think - I don't know how to do this - some others may know how of course - trying out related template tests first at "Template:Life timeline/sandbox" may be preferred - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SMALL should be ignored here, per the core policy WP:IAR, as following MOS:SMALL leads to ridiculous truncations like "Molluscs/Flowers/Hadean" to "Mollus/Flowe/Hadea," due to the sheer quantity of the information conveyed in the graphic (complexified by the close proximity of many elements). Upscaling the entire template would break its parallelism with other graphical timelines and would also overflow a typical page, so that's out too.
A better solution is simply to link to a larger version from the template page, like Template:Nature timeline/large. Compare to how thumbnails of wordy images violate MOS:SMALL, but we compensate by hosting a larger version that's accessible from the image page (e.g. File:Geological time spiral.png). Of course with templates, you can just zoom your browser too. —wing gundam 10:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Reproduction

According to our own article on Evolution of sexual reproduction linked in this timeline,

true sex is thought to have arisen in the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA), possibly via several processes of varying success, and then to have persisted (compare to "LUCA").

and so cannot antedate either "Earliest Fungi" or "Earliest multicell life" --136.24.115.209 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes - but in the same Wikipedia article (at "Evolution of sexual reproduction#Origin of sexual reproduction" ), there is the following => "In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon".[1][2] - hope this helps in some way - nonetheless - there may be a need for some further clarification about this perhaps - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Reading the "Wangetal1999" reference of the Wikipedia article Evolution of fungi states, "The three-way split of plants, animals and fungi, 1576.88 Ma". The second paragraph of the Wikipedia article Evolution of sexual reproduction has three references for this, "sexually reproducing animals, plants, fungi and protists could have evolved from a common ancestor that was a single-celled eukaryotic species." Thus it is impossible for fungi to have appeared before sexual reproduction. Now it may be true that the earliest fossil evidence for sexual reproduction is where stated in this time line template, that is a nuance which will be lost on the great majority of Wikipedia readers. Under the Wikipedia dictum "be bold", and in good faith, I made the change to match the reference, and put the reference in as a comment, hidden from readers, but available to Wikipedia editors. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nwbeeson: - Yes - *entirely* agree with your adjustments to the ((Life timeline)) template - no problem whatsoever - Thank You for your help with this - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Original vs Test templates - comments welcome

@Abyssal, Adûnâi, BirdValiant, Bsherr, CharlesHBennett, Dbachmann, Femkemilene, Holy Goo, Hike395, Icarosaurvus, Isaac868, Jd22292, Jonesey95, Pgan002, Quiddity, Obsuser, PaleoNeonate, Raquel Baranow, and Wing gundam: (and any others that may be interested in this template):

Test templates are being considered - comparison of templates is below - *ORIGINAL* template - (Pros: linear scale; clear "ice ages"; regular template size - Cons: smaller fonts) - VERSUS - *TEST-1* NON-Linear scaling (Pros: bigger fonts - Cons: non-linear scaling [distorted view?; less realistic/objective?; anthropic biased?]; obscure "ice ages"; bigger [longer & wider] template size) - VERSUS - *TEST-2* Linear scaling (Current) (Pros: bigger fonts; linear scaling - Cons: bigger template size) - Comments Welcome from Editors - related templates include: ((Human timeline)) and ((Nature timeline)) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

START (2007)ORIGINAL (2016-2021)NEW (2021) (current)
Wow, you did a great job updating this template to comply with accessibility-related guidelines, including MOS:SMALLFONT. Very nice. It looks like the smallest font is at 85.5% of normal; you could go down to 85% if it would help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Thank you for your comments - please understand that the Test template (Sandbox version at "((Life timeline/sandbox))") was developed by "User:Hike395" - yes - *entirely* agree - a truly *Excellent* job was done with this template of course - nonetheless - the Test template may have some pros and cons also - and may require further comments, critical review and agreements from other editors before being fully implemented - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Overall, I like the content of this template and think it's useful. However, as Bsherr and Jonesey95 have pointed out, above, the current template violates MOS:SMALLFONT. The template is used on four Feature Articles: Earth, Evolution, Formation and evolution of the Solar System, and Ediacaran biota. Those Featured Articles are required to follow all of the Manual of Style. If we can't fix the fonts in the template, we would have to remove the template from those four articles. I think that would be a shame, because the template does provide useful information.
As User:72.16.99.93 points out, above, the template is quite crowded with information about the last billion years. That makes sense, since life has become much more complex since the Cambrian explosion. I agree with DrBogdan that the links are valuable and should be preserved. The only way I know how to present such information without using small fonts is to expand the area devoted to them. Thus, I used a slightly non-linear time scaling (t^0.8) where more room is allowed to present the numerous links corresponding to the last billion years.
Drbogdan is asking whether the non-linear scaling is biased or less realistic. In the art of data visualization, non-linear mapping of time is rather common. For example, people use log log charts. Timelines are not required to be linear --- to quote the Wikipedia article, "Timelines can use any suitable scale representing time, suiting the subject and data; many use a linear scale, in which a unit of distance is equal to a set amount of time."
The sandbox is my attempt to keep the information in the original template while still obeying MOS:SMALLFONT. (I still need to check whether the colors are accessible). I'd like to hear whether editors think it's better to keep a linear timeline and have a smaller infobox, or to obey MOS:SMALLFONT, or to drop many of the links. — hike395 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: (and others): Thank you for your *Excellent* comments above - they're *greatly* appreciated - just wondering - would it be possible to preserve both the better Font-size and the Linear-scaling on the "Original" template by *Lengthening* the Template size itself? - seems that with the current longer/wider sandbox "Test" template version displayed above this may be possible after all - maybe this could be a possible solution of the Font-size and Linear-scaling concerns? - and perhaps provide even more room for any additional relevant notes/links/details - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that getting rid of arthropods and molluscs is an acceptable outcome. BirdValiant (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395 and BirdValiant: - Thank you *very much* for the newly made *Longer* "Linear-scaling" Test version - for my part, I *really* like this version - but also agree with "User:BirdValiant" to now also include the "arthropods" and "molluscs" text if possible (which may now be even easier than earlier due to the larger template size) - ALSO - should the inside template text be "Bold" like in the "Original" template version? - iac - Thanks again - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed "Arthropods" and "Molluscs" to "Chordates" not because of formatting, but because all three versions make it seem that Dinosaurs and Mammals descended from Arthropods and Molluscs. But that's not relevant to the formatting change, so I restored it back. We can decide later.

I prefer the compressed (middle) version. DrBogdan had previously mentioned that having a larger infobox is not great, and I agree with that. I was trying to go for the smallest infobox that still obeyed the Manual of Style. I think most of the space past 2000 Ma is not well-utilized and will crowd the article text. I also see that the Primates and Flowers label are overflowing their boxes. But I don't want to make the infobox any longer. — hike395 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Nudged the "Primates" and "Flowers" text up a bit on the "Linear test" template version - seems better - and - no (or much less) overlapping/overflowing-the-box - still prefer the "Original" and/or "Linear test* versions—more realistic views imo—(rather than the "Non-linear test" version—somewhat "distorted" view imo) - however - expect to follow the "WP:CONSENSUS" of other editors of course - NOTE - my earlier comments (05/06/2021) re template scaling and Wikipedia readability may also be relevant to the present discussion, and can be viewed in full at the following link => "Template talk:Eons graphical timeline#Template scaling" - and are copied, in part (and with minor updated editing for relevance here), as follows => my main concern ... with scaling, other than linear, is one of presenting material with the best understanding for most viewers ... to me, the less technical the presentation, the better the understanding of the material - in "wording" - and in "scaling" (linear is much better understood by most imo) as well - non-linear time scaling, besides being a somewhat distorted view of things, is not easily understood even by technical students (including engineer-types) based on my university lecturing experiences - linear scaling is much, much better understood by most - also - IF Possible, the best wording(s) for the "((Life timeline))" (as well as the "((Human timeline))" and the "((Nature timeline))") may be wordings as non-technical and as brief as possible - more detail re the event may be found at associated wikilinks - this may make the "((Life timeline))" more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1] - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (3 September 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved 14 May 2021.
Great that you're working on it. I'm always looking for 'less is more', to make sure that readers can find interesting information fast. I can only think of a few tweaks:
  • Go back to having less tick labels on the left. I don't think having 4250 is quite relevant
  • I don't think it's necessary to have ice ages with an asterisk; it's already in the name (or glaciation).
  • There is a bit more white space on the right than necessary. Can 'this box' be shuffled to the left a bit?
  • We can shorten it (and maybe avoid a tiny bit of sandwhiching) by putting millions years ago on top?
  • Maybe not having italics is less distracting? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Made fewer tick labels
Ice ages with asterisks: Drbogdan wanted to highlight them. How about if we only use one asterisk?
The white space depends on the browser you're using. In Chrome, there is white space to spare. In Firefox, it's pretty tight. Which browser do you use?
There's no facility in the underlying module to put something on top.
I can remove italics.
hike395 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Can put more space between those. — hike395 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done @Quiddity: (and others) Thanks for your suggestion re "water" - one possibility is to lighten the background but still be bluish and a bit shaded (for the color of water at a low depth) - also added bold to the "water" text - for better contrast => "result is here" - may now be ok? - or at least better than the "original white text on bluer background"? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
After your and hike395's edits, it looks good to me, and still passes the contrast check. Thanks again! Quiddity (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Large size of linear scaling

@Drbogdan: I see your point about linear scaling. How about a compromise? Let's stick with linear scaling, but set the class to "nomobile", which will hide the template on mobile browsers. The timeline is so big that the user experience on phones is not so nice. Just to point out, elements like sidebars and navboxes are already hidden on mobile browsers, so this will be the same as those.

What do editors think? — hike395 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion - yes - seems like an *excellent* idea - *entirely* ok with me - no problem whartsoever - hope this helps - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

New template seems ready for a "Test Run"

@Abyssal, Adûnâi, BirdValiant, Bsherr, CharlesHBennett, Dbachmann, Femkemilene, Holy Goo, Hike395, Icarosaurvus, Isaac868, Jd22292, Jonesey95, Pgan002, Quiddity, Obsuser, PaleoNeonate, Raquel Baranow, and Wing gundam:
 Done - To All Interested - copied the "Test Template Life timeline - Linear (sandbox2) version" to the "main template page" - seems ready for at least a "test run" so-to-speak - may (or may not) need some tweaks - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edit of course - the " "Original" (sandbox3) version" is now at "sandbox3" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Yes Looks like we've gotten to a good graphic! — hike395 (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. BirdValiant (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: - Thank you for your comments - and *all* your own *excellent* efforts with this new template - yes - *entirely* agree - seems the new template is better (and more suitable) to Wikipedia re accessibility requirements and related than the "older original template" - Thanks again for your efforts with this new better template - your efforts are *greatly, greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick question

Apologies for the late response; my thesis has been consuming my life. I was wondering why there is no line extending to the modern day for the arthropods/mollusks group? Otherwise, I am loving the new template; it's much more readable (and accurate!) than the old one. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus and Hike395: (and others) - Thanks for your comments - and concern - by coincidence, I was just wondering exactly the same thing last night - maybe there is a fix for this - guess we'll have to wait-and-see at the moment - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Icarosaurvus and Hike395: (and others) - BRIEF Followup - one possible way to do this may be to extend a single very thin line from the middle of the "Arthrodods"/"Molluscs" block/bar vertically up to the top - between the "Birds" and "Primates" - some shifting may be needed (ie, "Dinosaurs" moved to the left a bit) - also - some shifting of other blocks/bars may be required - working in the sandbox ("Template:Life timeline/sandbox") before adding to the main template may be in order of course - doing this may be beyond my abilities at the moment, but other editors may like to give this (or some other solution) a try I would think - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Drbogdan: What about running it up along the far right side? I do not have time to do it myself, as graduate school is all-consuming, but it seems as though widening it slightly might be an option? Thanks for all your work! Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done Snuck it up the right side, per Icarosaurvus. I sure wish we could change this to Chordates, though. — hike395 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It looks great; thanks for all the work! Though you do bring up a great point with chordates. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Restore orange boxes marking ice ages

@Drbogdan: Moving the ice age names to the right looks OK. However, you should restore some narrow orange boxes (with no text) on the left, to mark the durations of the ice ages. New size looks very nice otherwise. —wing gundam 00:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wing gundam: Thank you for your recent comments - and compliments re the updated "((Life timeline))" - the notion of restoring the ice ages (including narrow orange boxes) to the left was thoroughly considered by myself and other template editors, including "User:Hike395", at the time of the recent template updating, but was not considered as good an option, for one reason or another, than the one we finally adopted - you may try to develop a test template of your preferred notions for "WP:CONSENSUS" in the template sandbox (at => "Template:Life timeline/sandbox" ) if you like of course - hope this helps in some ways - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Beginning of sexual reproduction

@AmazinglyLifelike, Drbogdan, Icarosaurvus, and Hike395: User:AmazinglyLifelike has recently changed the date of the beginning of sexual reproduction to a later date and basically changed one primary paper with another. On the Evolution of sexual reproduction article there are references pointing to sexual reproduction possibly being integral to the evolution of the first eukaryotic cell. Unless I see some better documentation, I favor just getting rid of the entry on the timeline altogether. BirdValiant (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

When did multicellular life start?

There's a considerable gap between the "Earliest Multicellular Life" arrow and the start of the Multicellular Life section. They would have to be in the same place. Should I change it? AmazinglyLifelike (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done - @AmazinglyLifelike, BirdValiant, Icarosaurvus, and Hike395: (and others): "Adjustments" made to the ((Life timeline)) template as suggested above - at least for starters until the issue(s) are better understood - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like the best idea, aye; these debates seem to get pretty contentious in academic circles, and there's no sense in bringing that grief here to Wikipedia at this time. Thanks a bunch for all your work, Drbogdan. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

When did sexual reproduction start?

@Abyssal, Adûnâi, AmazinglyLifelike, Beausoleilmo, BirdValiant, Bsherr, CharlesHBennett, Dbachmann, Femkemilene, Hike395, Holy Goo, Icarosaurvus, Isaac868, Jd22292, Jonesey95, Magyar25, Nwbeeson, Obsuser, PaleoNeonate, Pgan002, Prometheus720, Quiddity, Raquel Baranow, UnlawfulWaffle1, Verisimilus, and Wing gundam: (and others):

At the moment, "Earliest sexual reproduction" is not noted on the ((Life timeline)) template since the time is not clear - previously, noted times on the template included the date 1200 Mya[1][2] - and - the date 1576 Mya[3] - in addition - and after a recent Google search - seems the date 2000 Mya[4][5] is very well cited.

QUESTION: Are there any other suggested times (with WP:Reliable sources)? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - based on the above references and related, seems the very best available supported estimate of the earliest time sexual reproduction began is about 2000 Mya[4][5] - accordingly - this date is being used as a note on the ((Life timeline)) template - at least for starters at the moment - this date can be updated based on even better documentation than currently available of course - Comments Welcome on this and related issues - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Butterfield, Nicholas J. (2000). "Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes". Paleobiology. 26 (3): 386. doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2000)026<0386:BPNGNS>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
  2. ^ Cumming, Vivian (4 July 2016). "The Real Reasons Why We Have Sex". BBC. Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
  3. ^ Wang, D.Y.C.; Kumar, S.; Hedges, S.B. (1999). "Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals and fungi". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 266 (1415): 163–171. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0617. PMC 1689654. PMID 10097391. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
  4. ^ a b Otto, Sarah P. (2008). "Sexual Reproduction and the Evolution of Sex". Nature. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
  5. ^ a b Zimmer, Carl (5 June 2009). "On The Origin Of Sexual Reproduction". Science. 324. p. 1254. Retrieved 1 October 2021.