User talk:Jarred C Lloyd

Welcome
G'day Jarred C Lloyd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email [mailto:help@wikimedia.org.au?subject=Help+me+please!&body=Please+tell+us+your+Wikipedia+username+and+the+article+you+are+trying+to+change+and+what+the+problem+is help@wikimedia.org.au].

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your user page.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Article titles
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! JarrahTree 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Chaotian (geology)
I'm concerned that the deletion rationale you proposed isn't based on policy or guidelines. That something isn't widely adopted doesn't mean that it's not notable. I've found it difficult to search for sources for this topic as there appears to be another meaning of the term Chaotian in geology (a specific geological feature in China). Can you please expand the deletion rationale with references to the WP:N guidelines which this fails, and an explanation of your WP:BEFORE actions, explaining why this deletion would be uncontroversial? Thanks! pburka (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for raising this with me. Still new to editing Wikipedia, had read WP:N and WP:BEFORE but may have misinterpreted this. Upon further consideration I have decided to revise my position on deletion of this page. My initial view was on WP:SIGCOV as on the geological side there are only two sources that I know of/am able to find [Van Kranendonk et al. 2012] and [Ogg et al. 2016] (which is mostly a concise version of Van Kranendonk et al. 2012). Under this (same for Zirconian) I believe it fails the WP:SIGCOV as only two (really one) sources cover this issue as part of a Precambrian revision (which should probably be expanded in Geologic time scale).
 * However, on further reading of [Goldblatt et al. 2010] I've realised that a second proposal was made to denote the time from initiation of planetary accretion in the solar system to the final amalgamation of Earth. As there are two independent sources I believe this is categorised as notable under the guidelines WP:N.
 * I'll work on clarifying and improving the page.
 * I am still of the opinion Zirconian fails WP:SIGCOV and should just be expanded Geologic time scale.
 * Hopefully this clarifies my reasoning, any further guidance on this matter is appreciated. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an area I'm very familiar with, so you may well be right, but I found the argument initially presented insufficiently clear-cut for PROD. Wikipedia has three different deletion procedures: WP:SPEEDY for unambiguously unencyclopedic content, WP:AFD for community deletion discussions, and WP:PROD for articles which editors are convinced would be uncontroversial if brought to AFD. I'd recommend spending some time in AFD before using PROD. pburka (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)