User talk:Benniboi01

Welcome!

Hello, Benniboi01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! creffett (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Holocene graphical timeline

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Holocene graphical timeline requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 05:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't see this, but yes, I did want this deleted. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benniboi01 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geological epoch

I saw the errors in Template:Geological epoch/doc and plan to try rewording that page in an effort to clean up Category:ParserFunction errors. However, the template is new and it would probably be best to see what others think first. I suggest you post at WT:WikiProject Geology and link, for example, to Holocene and ask for opinions regarding {{Geological epoch}}. I found that talk page from the heading at the top of Talk:Holocene. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq I'll ask for opinions on the template there, I should have asked in the first place. Are you asking me to seek approval to keep it or something?Benniboi01 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, frankly my suggestion was entirely self-serving as I would like to tweak the doc page but not if the template ends up being not used. Apart from that, it would be a good idea to get other views. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you want to edit the doc page? I'll go ahead and ask, but I think that's fine. I'm not sure exactly what to ask though Johnuniq. Sorry for late response.Benniboi01 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I sounded ornery Johnuniq. The template is being used across several different pages, so if you'd like to tweak it, please go ahead. It's being used on all the geological epoch pages right now, and I'm planning to use it on all the geological age pages, as well, so long as people are okay with that. Thank you for asking. Stay safe. Benniboi01 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just want the errors in the doc page removed. Happy editing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Cambrian
added a link pointing to Green Point
Ordovician
added a link pointing to Green Point

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinvigorating the period taskforce

Hi Benniboi, I see we both recognise the inadequacy of most geological period articles (arguably most are significantly worse than their Britannica equivalents), despite their high viewership. One of the reasons for this I think is that they both lie below the critical theshold of attention that would guarantee their improvement (>5,000 views per day) and the fact that they are incredibly broad topics that require extensive background reading and research to cover properly. I've made some significant headway on the Jurassic article, but others require major expansion and restructuring. There's a need to recruit other participants to help improve the articles, but I'm not sure where it is best to do so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to get more people working on this stuff @Hemiauchenia:, but I'm not necessarily sure where to start either. Maybe we could have a discussion about this in the Wikiproject Geology talk page, or perhaps even recruit people from Wikiproject Paleontology.Benniboi01 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand there is a big Featured Article Review session going on at the moment and most Wikiproject Paleontology members are wrapped up in keeping current FA's. I think that the period taskforce should also include epochs and stages. While many of the epoch and stage articles it isn't necessary to flesh them out in the same way that the main period articles are due to the limited scope and overlap with the main period article. The Cenozoic epochs are as prominent as the periods they are contained in. Pleistocene recieves 1,300 views per day while Quaternary recieves less than half that, but the overlap between Quaternary and Pleistocene is nearly 100%. I'm not sure how to meaningfully structure the Quaternary article while avoiding making it redundant to the Pleistocene article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia:I agree that many of the epoch and age pages could have more information in them. I can update the Periods taskforce page with info on those. I'm not sure how to prevent overlap, but perhaps the epoch articles could go more in-depth than the period articles, but that might be pretty hard to do.Benniboi01 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox geologic timespan

Hello, I've restored earlier versions of Late Pleistocene and Chibanian because your infobox does not take account of important references held in Template:Quaternary (period). You need to ensure that those sources are included in your infobox at the appropriate point and that there is no conflict over reference tag names: they are named ICC and FRS in the quaternary box and this is widely repeated within holding articles. Have you gained a consensus anywhere for replacing the infobox? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've found a discussion at the geology project which has given you consensus for the new infobox so that's not a problem. However, you do need to consider the referencing issues and hopefully resolve them, plus any other impacts that the new infobox might cause. For the time being, several articles are utilising both templates. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to resolve this issue soon - my focus is on school finals right now, but this weekend I hope I can get to it.Benniboi01 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@No Great Shaker: I added the references to the Quaternary time scale. Does it look ok, and is it enough?Benniboi01 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks fine. Good luck in your exams. Stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Thank you! I didn't see this message before exams, but I did well. Can I get rid of the Holocene period template on the Quaternary page and the others now?

Nomination for deletion of Template:All time scale

Template:All time scale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cambrian Series 2 graphical timeline

Template:Cambrian Series 2 graphical timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Geological epoch

Template:Geological epoch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Proterozoic time scale

Template:Proterozoic time scale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Proterozoic 220px

Template:Proterozoic 220px has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Proterozoic fossil range/bar

Template:Proterozoic fossil range/bar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lunar geological period

Template:Lunar geological period has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Llandovery epoch graphical timeline

Template:Llandovery epoch graphical timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wenlock epoch graphical timeline

Template:Wenlock epoch graphical timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of geologic time scale

Hi Benniboi1, I've started work on revising the terminology section of the geologic time scale as a result of this discussion. I've made good progress, but am now expanding the scope of my revision to a significant portion, if not all, of the article. I know you have an interest in this, and particularly the Period (geologic time) articles. Mikenorton has indicated they will help out when they get the opportunity. Just thought I'd let you know, feel free to contribute, make suggestions, help out, and check over the work. At this stage I think I'm going to end up rejigging most of the article, and want to make a non-clock style timeline for the first graphic. I am currently drafting here. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good. I can try to help out a bit, but right now I'm working on getting some time spans' constraints updated, since a lot of them are outdated. Thank you for letting me know and I'll try to check out what you're working on sometime soon. Benniboi01 (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just recently updated the Template:Period start error to the latest values of the ICC v2022/02 and had the Template:Period start also updated. These should help with updating and maintaining spans if you use them to generate spans either through {{Period span | geochronologic unit}} or with the {{Period start | geochronologic unit}}, {{Period start error | geochronologic unit}} and corresponding {{Period end | geochronologic unit}}, {{Period end error | geochronologic unit}}.
E.g., for the Jurassic
201.4 million years ago to 143.1 million years ago
201.4 ± 0.2 Ma to 143.1 Ma (you can replace Ma with million years ago)
Using those should help maintenance of time spans as the updates will cascade and we only need to update those templates. I'll slowly venture through the higher level geologic units to replace physical text values with their respective template. I know that the GTS2020 book also exists and will have slightly differing geochronometry, but I think we should stick with the ICC of the ICS as this is the "standard" whereas GTS2020 is a commercial publication nowadays. That's explained in the Cohen et al. 2013 Episodes paper when ICC version 2013/01 was released. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect, I was going to request an edit of the period start template, but I got a bit busy. I looked at the discussion you sent briefly but I am a bit busy with things, so I'll take a more in-depth look when I have free time.Benniboi01 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I just looked at the terminology section and I have really only one issue with it as of right now. The template with the header "units in geochronology and stratigraphy" messes up the page for me, but unless you have any objections I can just remove that, since I don't see any reason to keep it there. Otherwise, everything looks great! Good Work!Benniboi01 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry been a little while since I checked this page. Probably best to suggest changes/revisions on User_talk:...GTS.
I've ended up making a (simpler/clearer) table and doing away with that particular template as I don't think it is necessary and mixes hierarchical units with non-hierarchical units
I've definitely gone into full article revision mode, as I think we can make the GTS article much improved from it's current state and hopefully push it up to A-class or FA-class. It's building on the existing page, but reordering, updating, improving, adding sections, and bringing it more into line with the ICC GTS, while still showing the history of the GTS in general. IMO the current version of the article conflates the GTS with non-Earth based time lines a bit too much, and is in a bit of an odd order.
Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscovered isotopes

Hi, I noticed several of your recent edits to "Isotopes of X" pages. While I thank you for updating some information, I don't believe it's a good idea to include undiscovered isotopes. This is because especially for heavier elements, there are many more undiscovered isotopes, many of which either are not discussed in reliable sources or have conflicting predictions. Some unsourced isotopes are given in {{NUBASE2020}} – the main reference for these articles – but one should not favor a particular prediction as it suggests bias or cherry picking. I removed your addition of 30F from isotopes of fluorine for this reason; however, in this case, studies do indicate that this nuclide is unbound (beyond the neutron drip line), and I think mentioning that somewhere in the main article text could be appropriate. Complex/Rational 20:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I can remove the other questionable isotopes from the other pages. I was working on a personal project where I had to compile data on the isotopes, so I figured I would update some articles since I had all of the data compiled already. I wasn't quite sure what people wanted, and I should have asked, but I will be more conservative with the lists from now on. Benniboi01 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your updates in any case. Although I believe undiscovered isotopes should be removed (is it okay with you if I go ahead and do that? I also found some new data to add to some pages), the explanatory notes for decay modes that should occur but haven't been experimentally confirmed are still helpful. Complex/Rational 15:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and remove the undiscovered isotopes, if you haven't already. I'll try to continue to update the isotope pages with more new isotopes (again, if you haven't already) and remove other unconfirmed ones when I see them. I have had trouble interpreting data in many of the isotope discovery papers for isotopes found after the NUBASE 2020 evaluation, so if you are better able to understand them I could include a list of references to the applicable papers. I figured I'd ask in case you knew. Benniboi01 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, before you go removing all of the unconfirmed isotopes, you might want to see what I wrote on the WikiProject Elements talk page. I think there might be some value in keeping the unconfirmed nuclides on the table, but if you folks decide that it is more convenient to just get rid of them feel free to do so. I will not add any new unconfirmed isotopes unless a decision is made, but I will continue to add newly discovered isotopes as I find them. Benniboi01 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think inclusion of unconfirmed nuclides is fine, provided there are reliable reports of observation and they're explicitly labeled as unconfirmed. And feel free to share the discovery papers you have – I'm happy to take a look and see if there's any data we can add. Complex/Rational 18:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose by "unconfirmed" I meant "undiscovered" (sorry for the confusion - I'll make sure to clear this up in the wikiproject talk page as well), but if I do find that any isotopes I add are unconfirmed I will state that. I will also work on sending that list of references, and I am very grateful to have your help in this, since the terminology since this will also help me update my data for a closely related project that I may post about once I feel ready. Benniboi01 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Eoarchean graphical timeline

Template:Eoarchean graphical timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]