Template talk:Life timeline/Archive 1

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)
 * ✅ - 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 July 2012
 * ✅ - replied at userpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2012 (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)
 * ✅ - 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)

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)
 * ✅ - "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)

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)
 * ✅ - "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)

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)
 * ✅ - "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)

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)
 * ✅ - Thank you for posting - no problem whatsoever for Wikipedia articles - simply add, to a Wikipedia article or page, the following template code =>   - (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)

Timing

 * dinosaurs came before flowers?? [Note: comment by 143.246.216.78 on 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]
 * 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)


 * what's with the "dinosaurs" thing? Let's be precise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.86.195 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (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)
 * ✅ - Quotation marks re dinosaurs removed - seems better after all - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:50, 23 May 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)
 * ✅ - 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" - 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)

Age of the Earth older?
The latest estimate of the age of the earth is 4568 million years, not 4540 million. Reference: 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)
 * ✅ - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and 2010 reference in Nature Geoscience suggesting a somewhat older determination (ie, 4568 mya) of the age of the Earth - however - a more recent 2013 reference in Scientific American - 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)

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)
 * ✅ - 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)

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" 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)
 * 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)

✅ - 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 "" 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 "" more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) - (also - see related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 18 November 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)
 * ✅ - "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)": @: Thank you for your recent edits on the - 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" - 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)
 * 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 - 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)

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)

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)


 * ✅ - 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)
 * ✅ - 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)
 * 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, please point out which off-topic article the template should be removed from, instead of vaguely complaining? Thank you, — Paleo  Neonate  - 01:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. — Paleo  Neonate  - 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?  — Paleo  Neonate  - 02:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - 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)

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)

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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":

Page has been vandalized, please remove obscene photos. 121.214.61.2 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - 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 => "Village pump (technical)" - 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)

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)
 * ✅ - 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - - 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)

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)
 * ✅ - 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)

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)
 * ✅ Thank you for your comments - please see the following link for more information about the beginnings of "photosynthesis" => "Evolution of photosynthesis" - 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)

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)

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)

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
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Accessibility issues and lint errors in template
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. (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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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") 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)

✅ – 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 => Village pump (technical) - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)