Talk:Detailed logarithmic timeline

I'm
I'm working from my long timeline and trying to choose the least controversial items, but edits are welcome. --robotwisdom 3 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)


 * Great list. Where is that long timeline? DirkvdM 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keeping up to date
I guess as each year goes by, the events near the boundaries of the last few rows will have to be reevaluated, and moved up the chart.&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added the years for clarity, plus a commented-out note that this was done in 2005. This should be adapted once a year. The problem is that one needs to know the exact years for events to determine whether they need to be moved up a step. Maybe those could be added too, also commented-out, so only editors will see it - specifically the ones who do the above, so they can more easily check that while they're at it. DirkvdM 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, there doesn't seem to be an order in the events mentioned. Neither alphabetically (which would be stupid), nor by importance or chronologically. By importance would be rather logical, although that has the risk of pov. So chronological seems to make most sense. DirkvdM 07:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I try to put things more or less in chronological order. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

US bias
As is so often the case in the English Wikipedia (not surprising considering where most editors must live), there is a strong US bias in the events. Such as listing several US presidents and the San Francisco earthquake, but leaving out the Republic of China. That must be one of the major changes in world history - the end of the millennia old sequence of empires in the biggest and historically most significant country in the world. I've added that. Removing items might however upset some people, so I'll first wait for any reactions to this. How many events should be listed per 'era' anyway? DirkvdM 07:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Logartihmic list of linear timelines
I found this article while looking for something different, but similar. A list of timelines which scale up/down with a factor ten. So the first one would cover the last 10 billion years, the second one the last billion years, then the last 100 million years, etc, to the last year (after that it would become a newspaper - which would still make sense, just not in this format). The first list does not cover the Big Bang, but when, and even if, that happened is uncertain, so it could be mentioned separately at the beginning, outside the lists. Each list itself would however be linear. So there would be 11 lists. The first one would be a bit boring (just the creation of the Solar system and the first life). The second one would look like something this (mya = million years ago):
 * 1 bya first multicellular organisms
 * 900 mya
 * 800 mya
 * 700 mya
 * 600 mya first animals
 * 500 mya first fish
 * 400 mya first landlife
 * 300 mya pangea
 * 200 mya first mammals
 * 100 mya extinction dinosaurs

This list is based on the Timeline of evolution. And there are many other timelines, but no general ones. So, basically, what I want is a combined timeline of all the existing ones (and then some, I suppose). The third timeline would be for the last 100 milion years. Of course, there could also be such lists for periods that do not end in the present. Maybe 400-500 mya would be interresting (life creeping on land). This would then go on a separate page. Of course, this could theoretically lead to an exponential explosion of timelines, but not all would be interresting enough.

Basically, this is just a different presentation of what's on this page, just more easily readable for someone who doesn't grasp logarithms (and at the same time clarifying that). And it has a much greater potential for expansion.

Does something like this already exist and if not, what should it be called? DirkvdM 08:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

US bias
There is still a US bias in the last few decades. -- Beland 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

updating
if you're going to keep updating the table, you need to be aware that events will migrate up in the table. It won't do to stuff an ever expanding period of time into the last row. By the nature of a logarithmic timeline, the last row covers the shortest period (say, one year). The second-but-last row, if we're going to stick with the unintuitive 10^0.1, will then be 1.26 years. This is supposed to be a logarithmic timescale, so it should be done properly (or not at all). --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be done dynamically. Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
 * I agree. Konli17 (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Gliese 876
there is no concensus on a formation date for this star. see Gliese 876, , Zeimusu | Talk page 23:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Milky Way
I removed an entry in the 2.5Ga-2Ga section stating that the Milky Way was created by the collision of 2 galaxies. The reference was an article about the Milky Way colliding with another galaxy 2Ga ago, NOT about the Milky Way being created then.... according to Wikipedia's Milky Way page, the oldest star in the Milky Way is 13Ga old and the galactic disk is 8.8Ga old... if we want a Milky Way creation event in the timeline, then it should be either of these 2 events, not a collision 2Ga ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording. The oldest star by the way may be older than the galaxy. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Valsequillo Basin and Cactus Hill
User Dougweller has removed the mentions of the Valsequillo Basin "footprints" and the Cactus Hill artefacts. I think we should leave them in. In the case of the "footprints", we say "possible human footprints". This doesn't mean that they are definitely footprints. But it does direct people to the subject so they can try to evaluate it for themselves. In the case of Cactus Hill, the artefacts exist. I don't understand Dougweller's comment. In any case, I don't think the few words on these two subjects are worth an "edit war" and using up Wikimedia's disk space by creating more and more old versions, just because we don't agree about whether to let people know about these possible signs of mankind's presence in America or to keep the people ignorant! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First, and I should have mentioned this, is why include it at all? How does it compare with the other entries? I'm not sure it does - it would if it were agreed to be the earliest archaeological site in America, but is it? The other was the source, which was not a scientific one and put forward a pov not accepted by archaeologists.
 * The problem with the alleged footprints is both that it doesn't say the earliest sign of humans, and that you are ignoring the fact that the latest scientific report says they are not footprints. Given this, it clearly shouldn't be in the timeline. And you really shouldn't insult other editors, please read WP:AGF. And this article is not here to show possible signs of mankind's presence in America, other articles do that job. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for Future Events
March 16, 2880, there is a 1:300 chance of the asteroid [(29075) 1950 DA] impacting Earth. Which at a little over a kilometre in diameter, would not be a good day. Worth noting.

As a geologist, I'm a little suspicious of putting the "land too hot for life" entry in the 1Gy and greater band ; It could be significantly earlier (there are complex feedbacks between surface temperature and the greenhouse effect of water vapour). Aidan Karley (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

New idea: 10 – 100 Ya: decays away. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Restructuring
You say we need to discuss my modification. I'm simply carrying out the restructuring that you started. What do you suggest? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not the way it looks. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you changed the break points for the first few billion years, but you didn't do it for the rest, so it wasn't consistent. I actually think it's better the way you started to do it. I had been thinking for the last couple years that it would be good to put the break points in between the R10 Renard numbers. That way, if we have a date for something such as "1 million years ago", we don't have to decide whether to put it in the slot "1 Ma to 900 ka" or "1.26 Ma to 1 Ma", we can just put it in the slot "1.1 Ma to 900 ka". I also discovered yesterday that the rounded R20 Renard numbers are nicer -- you don't have 1.26, or 6.3 anymore.
 * So now, after my edit, the whole thing is nice and neat and consistent.
 * By the way, what do you mean by "true north discovered"? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That the concept of true north was discovered for the first time, in China if memory serves. That's not a bad point about break points, but I was horrified that you'd lumped the whole of the last 5.5 years in together. The year is our basic unit here. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll break up the last 5.5 years again. I thought it was easier to lump them because there wouldn't be as much material in each slot. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Why can't you end with a year like I did? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that to maintain the systematic logarithmic structure, the breaks would have to be at 5.5, 4.5, 3.5, 2.8, 2.2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.1, and 0.9 years. In any case, we have to lump the most recent events into one group (as you have also done) or else we will have an infinite number of slots. So I thought the best would be to lump the last 5.5 years. That way we wouldn't have to deal with fractions of a year. Then, when you objected to that, I split it up, going down to the 2.2 year break. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't like it. The last unit should be a whole year, covering the last year. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So how do we make it logarithmic for the last 7 years? Or should we just abandon the logarithmic aspect for the last 7 years and put seven separate years? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We start at the bottom, rather than the top. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you explain? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The last entry covers one year, the last year. The second last one, a slightly longer period. And so on. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But the lengths of time from break points until now is meant to change logarithmically. (That's how it is in the rest of this table.) The ratio of one length to the next is 100.1, which is about 1.26. So if we put a break at 1 year ago, then the previous break should be at 1.26 years ago (only 0.26 years earlier), and the one before that at 1.6 years ago (giving a slot of 1.6 minus 1.26 or 0.34 years), and before that at 2 years ago, then 2.5 years ago, et cetera. You see the problem? It would be too hard to do and too hard to maintain (since the break points would change from month to month). Besides, it wouldn't mesh correctly with the time intervals before that (like 9 to 7, 11 to 9, ...). That's why I proposed to lump the last 5.5 years, or the last 7 years. That way we wouldn't have to start splitting years into pieces. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it would be at 2.26 years ago. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be at 2.26 years ago? The next-to-last break point? No, because the breakpoints themselves start 1.26 times further back in time for each interval backward.
 * Basic'ly, you can't do a logarithmic timeline in a consistent way all the way up to the present moment, because the logarithm of zero is minus infinity, so it would take an infinite number of intervals. We either have to totally ignore everything that has happened in the most recent so-many years (such as 5 years), or we have to lump everything in the most recent past into one exceptional slot. In order to be consistent, we need to continue putting the break points at numbers of years in the past that are numbers from the set 11, 14, 18, 22, 28, 35, 45, 55, 7, and 9, multiplied by powers of 10.
 * Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, the next-to-last break point would be at 2.26 years (1 + 1.26), the one before at 3.86 etc. I've no intention of going smaller than one year, the last year, as years are the unit we're using here. We don't have to do either of the things you suggest with my way. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But I've already explained why that's not good. What do you say about what I said? The way it is now, after you have reverted my edit, the last 16 years are not logarithmic. (And the earlier part is messy and inconsistent.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Explained where? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @ . I wouldn't expect anymore objections to your restructuring. Gob Lofa has been indefinitely banned for being a sockpuppet of a highly disruptive editor. Mabuska (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Detailed logarithmic timeline. 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/20050308021341/http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/logarithmic.html to http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/logarithmic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Human Bias
Human bias towards end of the chart. Why? Things still happen outside human political/religious/human bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:1:111:4449:F9DB:73EA:3BCC (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: External link to Deletionpedia
For context, here's a timeline of events: The discussion I wish to start here concerns the "protests of 2019" entry and whether or not it should contain the aforementioned Deletionpedia link. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * December 21, 2019: Eric Kvaalen introduces the entry "In general, protests of 2019.", with "protests of 2019" linking to the Wikipedia article Protests of 2019.
 * June 15, 2020: Spartaz deletes the Protests of 2019 article following a deletion discussion and delinks "protests of 2019" afterwards.
 * August 19, 2020: Eric Kvaalen introduces an external link to Protests of 2019 ' s entry on Deletionpedia.
 * July 18, 2021: Kuru removes the link.
 * July 21, 2021: Eric Kvaalen restores the link.
 * July 22, 2021: Ionmars10 removes the link.
 * July 31, 2021: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.
 * November 28, 2021: Kuru removes the link again.
 * December 27, 2021: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.
 * April 9, 2022: I start editing the article to expand the Future table.
 * April 23, 2022: Kuru removes the link again.
 * July 27, 2022: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.
 * July 30, 2022: I remove the link.
 * August 4, 2022: Eric Kvaalen restores the link again.


 * Protests of 2019 do not appear to be one connected event. If Eric wants to highlight a protest in its own right, that would be a different discussion. CurryCity (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No, there should not be a link to Deletionpedia. What this timeline shows is one editor repeatedly restoring a link removed by multiple other editors, without even mentioning it in his otherwise informative edit summaries. This hidden note is rather peculiar, too. The reason the article was deleted was that the community discussion determined that it did not belong on Wikipedia, which in itself means that we don't "want to give people access to the article". There is no possible policy-compliant reason to have such a link, and the consensus against it is clear. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Subparts
Is it okay if we put each table inside a label you an close. This way would be easier to navigate this article Ericulture (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been having the same idea in my head, but for images. While text can be ignored, some people may not be comfortable with having certain pictures in their peripheral vision while reading the text next to them. They would either have to try to manually cover those images with their hands as they scroll through, try to read articles in the editor, or try an existing image-hiding method that may be as tricky to set up as assembling furniture. In this case, it would be convenient to give readers the ability to manually collapse individual images from the get-go. If that is implemented, the [hide] button should be on top of each image so readers aren't forced to see the entirety of each one before they can hide it from themselves. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Future table
Would it be acceptable for the table in the article's Future section to be edited to follow the Renard algorithm (like the tables for the past) or would it be better for it to stay in its current form? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It is better if we stay with a base 10 log as the future always has less information as the past. Ericulture (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)