Template talk:Geological range

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geological range template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Geology Template talk:Geological range is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles

Showing time graphically is a good idea, but why is most of Earth's history lumped together as the Precambrian? There's a big difference between the Archean and the Ediacaran, especially when you look at microbial taxa. Is it too late to modify the template to divide up the vast swath of Precambrian time? Cephal-odd (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because if we displayed the whole of the Precambrian, the Phanerozoic would be squashed into about 10 pixels, and the image would not be very informative! It might be worth creating a separate bar which has the whole of time for pre-Cambrian beasties, but that should form a separate template to this one. Give me a few examples where this would be useful and I may try to get onto it when time permits. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you'd lose a lot of information by squashing the Phanerozoic that much, but that's only true if the whole timeline is to scale. Instead, we could depict the eras, or at least the eons, of the Precambrian at about the same size as the periods of the Phanerozoic. That would provide some detail over Precambrian time while still shrinking it enough to leave lots of space for the Cambrian to Neogene. However, your alternative idea of having separate bars for Earth's entire history and for the Phanerozoic alone sounds reasonable too, and has the advantage of showing time without distortion of scale.

As you request, here are a few examples to illustrate that a lot of evolution was happening during the vast swath that was the Precambrian:

• Bacteria: Archean - Recent
• Archaeplastida: Mesoproterozoic - Recent
• Amoebozoa: Neoproterozoic - Recent
• Sponge: Ediacaran - Recent
• Ciliate: Ediacaran - Recent
• Kimberella,Rangea,Charnia . . . : Ediacaran

These already appear in taxoboxes. There are also taxa that still have no stratigraphic range listed in their taxobox, but could use one:

Grypania: Paleoproterozoic - Mesoproterozoic

Cyanobacteria: Archean - Recent

Keep up the good work! Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting: Template:Long fossil range, now in use at Red alga! Note that the existing fossil range bar may be more appropriate for, e.g., Kimberella. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Cephal-odd (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article titled Schinderhannes bartelsi, I found this, with a conspicuous punctuation error:

Kühl, Gabriele; Briggs, Derek E. G.; Rust, Jes (2009). "A Great-Appendage Arthropod with a Radial Mouth from the Lower Devonian Hunsrück Slate, Germany". Science 323: 771-3

So I was going to edit it to say the following instead:

Kühl, Gabriele; Briggs, Derek E. G.; Rust, Jes (2009). "A Great-Appendage Arthropod with a Radial Mouth from the Lower Devonian Hunsrück Slate, Germany". Science 323: 771–3

But I couldn't find that in the article when I edited it; instead I found this:

{{fossil range|Lower Devonian|ref=<ref name=Kuhl2009/>}}

Somewhere within Wikipedia one must be able to find the information that needs to get edited. Where is it? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember citations are article specific so The full reference is in the Schinderhannes bartelsi article somewhere. In this case the entire citation is actually at the end of the 1st paragraph, but I do not know how to edit doi based citations sorry!--Kevmin (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click the word 'edit' that comes after the reference. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while generally a good template, i have to say that this is far from obvious for the casual user with no knowledge of geology. There should be a short explanation of what this means, linked via a ? or something. Also the visualisation is not ideal. I noticed it first on Porpoise, where the green bar to the very right is only noticable when searching for it. As said before, for the casual user this is just a colorful bar, nothing else. This is especially problematic when, as is the case in Porpoise, the explanation above says "Middle Miocene–Recent", but the bar does not have anything called Miocene, just a "N", which after clicking turns out to be Neocene, where you then find out that "Under the current proposal of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the Neogene would consist of the Miocene, and Pliocene epochs.". In short, the casual user cannot be expected to learn about Geology before getting anything out of a template that seems to be on every animal page. Quick fix: at a timeline under the bar with some indication how many million years ago the geological periods represent. Also make the green bar more obvious in some way or another.-- ExpImp^talkcon 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to previous commenter's observations, this box just looks retarded when viewed with any typeface size beyond 8 points at moderate resolutions (such as the 1440x900 resolution of my laptop with which I am viewing a page using the {fossil range| template right now.

In short, it looks atrocious. user:akulkis 76.243.106.37 (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: this template can be very well used to display the age of geological units. Only thing that doesn't fit is the name of the template; it could be expanded to something more general, like "age range". Thanks. --Qyd (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a taxobox to Ambilobeia, which lived in the Olenekian (early Triassic). This template recognises that name, but displays it at the end of the Permian (at least on my browser). The same appears to be true of Induan:

Wuchiapingian

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

Changhsingian

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

↓

Induan

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

↓

Olenekian

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

↓

Anisian

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

I don't know whether the error lies with Firefox, {{fossil_range}} or {{period_start}}, but I was hoping someone reading this might. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago I took the liberty of altering the width of the timeline from 200 pixels to 220 pixels, simply because it looked crowded (the 'PG' and 'N' barely fitted into their respective boxletts). Now someone has to adapt the fossil range-template please! --Gliese876 (talk) _220px" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I have done what you wanted me to. Incidentally, I renamed Template:Phanerozoic 200px to Template:Phanerozoic 220px, for obvious reasons. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fossil range/bar}} uses the HTML id "bar". When called multiple times, this results in duplicate ids, which causes a markup validation error. Example: W3C markup validation for Porbeagle.

{{Fossil range/marker}} uses the HTML id "Range-border" with the same issues.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced id= with comments. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other people's monitors but on mine the blue foreground against a purple background makes it very hard to see the letter "T" for Triassic. Perhaps changing it to a lighter color might help improve visibility. -- œ^™ 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: this is not applicable to non-taxobox articles.)

It's been pointed out that Lazarus taxa such as the coelacanth are difficult to accurately express the period of existence using the fossil range template. We're proposing the template be modified to indicate the known period of existence, using both fossil and living specimens as references for solid bars and transparency for the hypothesized existence. This would mean extant creatures with fossil range templates would have the solid bar would extend to 0 Ma and that the text "fossil range" would need to be changed to something different, such as "known time span". Suggestions are welcome, as are comments, questions, and criticism of the overall idea. Members of the relevant WikiProjects are being notified of this RfC. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want to make it the geologic range, then, instead of the fossil range? Most of the templates, I see in articles, appear to indicate the geologic range rather than the fossil range, the latter being a strange and inappropriate choice to begin with. In some species, extinct corals come to mind, this may have the unwanted consequence of making the taxobox more certain than the paleontological record allows. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what point is a fossil no longer a fossil? Surely dead coelacanths have been observed either in the wild or in captivity. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? I have no idea what you are talking about. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In extant species that also existed in fossil ages, a problem exists. When does the "fossil range" end and the shaded bar begin? If we know for a fact, for instance, that alligators are still alive today, we simply shade the bar all the way to the right with solid green. On the other hand, the fossil record of something like the coelacanth has a huge gap in it. We've represented that by shading the post-disappearance and reappearance with transparent green. Surely the recent coelacanth findings are no less fossil than the recent alligator findings...so why not treat both the same way? Both living and dead coelacanths have been found in recent years-- neither of which are exactly "fossilized"-- but have we found fossilized alligators from recent years? Do we turn the solid bar to a transparent one to the latest actual fossil found, or do we just extend the bar to the end regardless of the state of the specimen? Clearly there's a difference between the two ends of the transparency on the coelacanth as well-- one end represents possible existence, the other end represents confirmed sightings and captures. If we extend the solid portion to cover all confirmed instances, the name "fossil range" isn't really applicable anymore; if we restrict the solid bar to the fossil range, then the solid bar should probably never hit the 0 mark. That's a lot in one paragraph, but, as you can see, this summarizes (to some point) the dilemma posed by the implication that the solid bar is the "fossil range". Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, someone has today revised the coelacanth article so that the transparency is gone again. Still, "fossil range" doesn't exactly fit the last several tens of millions of years of the solid bar. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if you want to use geologic range instead of fossil range? The geologic range is the range from first to last appearance in the fossil record. I think it includes Recent for extant species. The geologic range for trilobites in the Grand Canyon is Cambrian to Permian. Fossil range is the record of fossils. The fossil range includes the times when fossil evidence of the taxon has been found. For example, the fossil range for trilobites in the Grand Canyon, on the scale of periods, is Cambrian and Devonian to Permian, and it excludes the Ordovician and Silurian. The fossil bar on most wikipedia articles actually represents the geologic range of the organism, and it is not usually tied to the strata, even with non-cosmopolitan taxa. Well, this is how I've always used it. Maybe sourcing documentation in templates would remove the conclusion. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "fossil" in fossil range was meant to be taken literally. I think the template is meant to document the entire duration that the relevant taxon was extant. Abyssal (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists a technical term for "the entire duration that the relevant taxon was extant" as gleaned from the fossil record, it's called "geologic range." That's what "geologic range" means. And "fossil range" already means to be taken as literally the taxon's appearance in the fossil record in contrast to its geologic range or duration through time. I find it confusing when wikipedia re-uses jargon to mean something different, so, in the midst of the confusion of why wikipedia is using one term to mean something it doesn't mean as a stand in for the term that means that, I am trying to be clear what is being discussed as a change. It is very confusing. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware there was a difference. If that includes living and decayed specimens as well as fossils, I'll support that wording. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit of "Fossil range" is that people aren't tempted to put in molecular divergence dates for the origin of total groups; the phrasing keeps it clear. Also, "Geologic" is in a horrible Americanism to my ears (as no doubt "Geological" is horrid to Americans). Nice to avoid divisiveness where possible! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? An "horrible Americanism?" Well, "North Americanism" and "European" Americanism I guess. I work with Canadian and English-speaking French geologists who also use the stratigraphic jargon for zone fossils. Nonetheless, it is the correct term. I'm going to drop out of this conversation, though, now that I've been accused of introducing "divisiveness" for using a technical term with its technical meaning. --Kleopatra (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just call it a grammatical slip of the tongue...nothing American about it...you'd get a red mark on your essay over here, too, for that. That aside, though...I think it's safe to say that hypothetical existence is not part of a confirmed geological range; therefore, if the geological range includes nonfossilized evidence, it works for me. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked around a bit, and "stratigraphic range" or "temporal range" seem to be widely used to describe it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal range Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal range sounds good to me. Abyssal (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then if there's no opposition, I'll update the organism taxoboxes to display "Temporal Range" where they currently display "Fossil Range". Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, change made. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Quaternary" time period was recently added to this template. Should it stay? 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I know I'm not one to talk, but I'm not convinced this edit, which adds "Q" to the time scale following "N", was well-thought-out or supported by more than one editor. Could someone provide rationale for this? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article that was adversely affected: Thresher shark. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion on the addition, but if it's going to be added then the bar needs to be fixed so that "Recent" makes it go to the end. -- Yzx (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, however, do have an opinion. As it happens, the International Commission on Stratography (ICS) is mainly a geological commission. Despite the geological changes at the ICS Quaternary boundary, the level of biological change at that time was not comparable to that of other period boundaries (IE Cambrian-to-Ordovician, Ordovician-to-Silurian, etc.). For example, any single genus of vertebrates is usually relatively short-lived in evolutionary time and very unlikely to survive a period-level extinction event as a number of invertebrate genera have done. Even a cursory look at dinosaur genera shows that most of them survived only 1 period. See Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and Diplodocus. However, the Genus Australopithecus, which evolved well before 2.6 million BC, survived long after this boundary until it finally went extinct in 1.7 million BC.

Thus, despite the geological validity for a Post-Neogene Quaternary, the biological Neogene basically continues.

In other words, the biological beings of today are basically Neogene biota regardless of non-living geological changes.

I should also point out that ICS does not recognize, at the other extreme, the Hadean Eon, but Wikipedia does. In light of all these things, I propose that we simply restore the old Fossil Range Template. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep the addition of Quaternary, we really need to fix the bar. Goblin shark is screwed up too. Abyssal (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Abyssal, you're right in terms of an "if" statement, but what do Admins make of my suggestion not to keep that edit? I have just explained source-able reasons for getting rid of that edit. I just explained, with links to appropriate Articles on extinct genera, why we should acknowledge a difference between the geological Neogene, which ended in 2.6 million BC, and the biological Neogene, which continues in new generations (indeed the very meaning of the word Neo[new]gene[generations]). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure extinction events have much to do with this, even though they are what defines groups on the scale. If the Quaternary is indeed not a part of the Neogene, this should be represented as accurately as possible. However, it's quite broken right now. Until someone gets time to inspect this more closely, I'll revert those edits, as they did break a substantial number of taxoboxes. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quaternary (what a horrible name considering there was never a Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary Period, by the way) is only geologically separate, not biologically. Fossil ranges have more to do with biological history than with non-living geological activity. Besides, if we're to insist on being completely ICS about it, why does Wiki acknowledge the non-ICS Hadean Eon at the other end of the scale? We can't have it both ways. So, let's not have a separate Quaternary with a Hadean Eon. That is, there are such things as textbook non-ICS paleontological schemes which are made to be more convenient for fossil ranges of taxa with less regard to non-living geological activity. Those are the scales that acknowledge a Hadean Eon for the time before the Primordial Soup Event, and such scales have also abandoned a separate Quaternary.

P.S. Those and ICS overlap for all the periods in between, although I can't promise anything for subepochs within periods in that regard. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Bob the Wikipedian, your revert has corrected the Articles on basically all surviving taxa with fossil records, and we all thank you for it! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the never was Tertiary and Secondary periods. Although you're right, the current Wikipedia geological time scale is WP:OR. I don't see your sources, though. Can you link your ICS sources to the specific matters you raise in your comments in this discussion? Thanks. --184.99.172.120 (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current timescale, there were never a Secondary and Tertiary Periods in the history of Earth. The "Tertiary Period" most of us were taught in middle school was renamed the Paleogene a few years ago, that's the 1st time I've ever heard the Mesozoic Era called the Secondary Period, and I still don't see a formerly-named Primary Period. In any case, I was commenting that ICS should rename the Quaternary in light of the fact that no such names as Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Periods are currently used. It was a parenthetical sidenote, and I said other things about Wiki, like how we need to drop the Hadean Eon if we're that serious about being ICS. There are non-original but also non-ICS scales I could track down in books given more time, but we're not presently in line with those either so it's almost a moot point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way you said it, it sounds like I just helped avoid a mass extinction event. Glad to make your day. I'm posting a notice at the dinosaur WP to get them in here...they're more qualified on this topic than me. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The Quaternary (what a horrible name considering there was never a Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary Period, by the way)" There used to be! The Tertiary is a recent loss (K-T boundary?) and the Quaternary is the last holdout from this much older system when the earth was thought to be much younger. Secondary pretty much corresponded to the modern concept of Mesozoic, by the way. Anyway I think we should stick to whatever the current ICS says, since it's not america-centric, is well-respected among researchers and is citable. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Based on this [1] it looks like Quaternary suffered the same kind of controversy and follow-up vote as Pluto, and Wiki followed the official commission on that one by labeling Pluto as a dwarf planet. Why not here? MMartyniuk (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC) One more thing: the ICS does recognize the Hadean, just labels it as informal as it does not have any definition or subdivisions. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does "informal" not mean the same as "not fully recognized" in stratography? That's exactly what the word "informal" means in taxonomy, so I apologize for any assumptions I made about that word before I got around to reading your post here. As for Pluto, that commission moved in the opposite direction by removing a full designation from something too small. The Quaternary is to time what Pluto is to mass. Regardless, my point was not so much to keep the Quaternary off the Template (except that it's the only way to make surviving taxa not look extinct) as to refrain from being inconsistent and making excuses for the Hadean Eon at the other end of the scale. (All based on my more-taxonomic-than-stratographical understanding of the word "informal"). Needless to say, biology is more my area than geology is. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Even a cursory look at dinosaur genera shows that most of them survived only 1 period." This statement is meaningless. Periods are in no way equivalent. No dinosaur genera (that aren't in need of a good splitting) survive a single stage, let alone period. A stage in the Mesozoic averages around 4-5Ma, the length of a typical Cenozoic epoch. The entire Cenozoic era is a good deal shorter than the Cretaceous period alone (65 Ma long vs 80 Ma long). So you can't make faunal turnover comparisons based on these divisions, er, period. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better follow the standards of the ICS and include the Quaternary. Choosing our own scale would be OR. We're already using ICS scales for many of our articles on stratigraphic units; the information in Template:Paleogene, Template:Neogene, Template:Quaternary etc. (which appear on many pages) are taken straight from the 2009 ICS scale. Smokeybjb (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoguy2, I'll have to take your word for that, as I've never really looked at individual faunal stages in Mesozoic periods.

Smokeybjb, by that logic let's get rid of the Hadean Eon from all our templates. The Hadean Eon is not ICS-recognized! By the way, the alternative scales I referred to are not original to me. I can find scales in biological textbooks with a Hadean Eon and only a 2-period Cenozoic. Just give me time, but I would never make up something like that. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's complete OR, but we need to come to some sort of agreement based on an official, widely accepted time scale. Since the ICS scales are the most widely accepted, it makes sense to model the template on them. Also, check out this scale[2], which includes the Hadean even though it isn't technically recognized. No need to throw it out. Smokeybjb (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any word on consensus to make or not make the change? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC became too much threaded to even read or follow, but as I'm not involved with the scope of the project I'll come through the basic idea, is it relevant for this article to have the template added? Is it going to corrupt anything? Does it have any drawback effects? I suggest that the discussion becomes sectioned to prevent threading, as it becomes confusing for uninvolved people. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Ed here. I can't tell whether this discussion has been resolved. Is there any sort of consensus on whether it is appropriate for us to include the Quaternary? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adding Quaternary. IMO we should follow a single, comprehensive, authoritative and citable source to the letter if possible, and the ICS is the obvious choice. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support adding Quaternary as per my comments above, and MMartyniuk's reasoning. Smokeybjb (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Well-reasoned as it may be, it did in fact corrupt a number of Articles when this very change was previously made and later reverted. Nothing that corrupts Articles (by making living taxa look extinct in this case) is worth it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Obviously we wouldn't just restore it...it would need debugged. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Comment. There would have to be a whole, separate Discussion Section on exactly how to debug it. Until I see such a Section, I oppose this altogether. It's better to be on the safe side in terms of template syntax, even if that means using the marine paleontological scale (IE current Neogene) for now. (Recall that marine paleontologists do sometimes use such a scale; marine biota have undergone relatively little turnover after 23,000,000 BC.) More to the point, the safe side of template syntax is always good. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that whenever you add the RFC template to a page, you need to add an actual "question" or summary of the issue, followed by a signature or timestamp. Otherwise, the bot will pick up whatever the next random comment is, and folks looking at the list will have no idea at all what you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Leonerasaurus-- 199 Ma should appear in the blue range, not the purple range. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Namurian be added to the geological range template please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 August 2011

 Done Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be added if possible the Paleocene North American Faunal Stages Torrejonian, Tiffanian, and Clarkforkian. --Kevmin § 03:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)  Done Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Example InfoBox on the Template Page, the "incertae" in "incertae sedis" should be capitalized (IE "Incertae sedis"). In a table (and an InfoBox is in fact a special kind of table), the first word in each cell should be capitalized as a matter of aesthetic decorum. It's a lot like the first word on a bullet point. In any Computer Technology or Computer Concepts class, they teach one these things in MS PowerPoint (R) and Word (R), and Wikipedia is visually not unlike a word processor. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, though it was actually the unprotected documentation needing edited. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Spaces are needed around the dash, especially because each part of the range is often made of several words. Please insert a non-breaking space ( ) before the dash, and a space after the dash.

I was going to fix that myself, but it's stupidly locked.

Thank you.

--Nnemo (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}}

Please wrap {{{prefix}}}, {{{3}}}, and {{{PS}}} in <span style="display:inline-block;">...</span> as discussed at Template talk:Automatic taxobox#arbitrary editing break. That is, the entire template should be

<includeonly><span style="display:inline-block;">{{{prefix|}}}</span><span style="display:inline-block;">{{{3|{{{text|{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|–{{{2|}}}}}{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|| Ma}}}}}}}}</span>{{{ref|{{{reference|{{{refs|{{{references|}}}}}}}}}}}} <span style="display:inline-block;">{{{PS|{{{ps|}}}}}}</span>{{Phanerozoic 220px}}<!--

Fossil range marker

--><div name=Range style="margin:0 auto; line-height:0; clear:both; width:220px; padding:0px; height:8px; overflow:visible; background-color:transparent; position:relative; top:-4px; z-index:100;">{{fossil range/marker|{{#if:{{{earliest|}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{earliest}}}}}|{{period start|{{{earliest}}}}}|{{{earliest}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{period start|{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}}}|{{#if:{{{latest|}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{latest}}}}}|{{period end|{{{latest}}}}}|{{{latest}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{period end|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}|42<!-- This determines the opacity of the bar-->}}
{{fossil range/marker|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|{{period start|{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}}}|{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{period end|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}
</div Range>
</div Timeline-row></includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc}}</noinclude>

Gorobay (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since the title of the taxobox section that contains this template was changed from "Fossil range" to "Temporal range" I have followed the lead of other editors in using "Present" instead of "Recent" to describe extant taxa. In my and apparently others opinions, it makes no sense to describe the temporal range of say, Mammalia, as "Jurassic - Recent" when I know that mammals exist more than "recently". "Recent" made sense when the field was Fossil Range as it is possible to describe subfossils as recent where Holocene may not have been appropriate. The field has been labelled "Temporal Range" in the taxobox template for over a year. I recently had several of these edits reverted, however, so any comments? MMartyniuk (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Recent" is apparently confusing, "Holocene" would work. That way, the end of the temporal range would be a geological unit, same as the beginning of the range. Peter Brown (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree. "Present" is more specific. It shouldn't be linked, though, since Present is quite another matter. Peter Brown (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get my fossil range to display from Triassic to Oligocene. I put in earliest=Triassic and latest=Oligocene, but I got an error and cannot see what I did wrong. Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that the template apparently isn't good at handling time ranges due to uncertainty. In this particular case I can't find any date estimate narrower than 76 to 72 mya. I would suggest that some way of displaying this uncertainty without having to arbitrarily select a date is needed. Perhaps a |uncertain parameter that prefixed "somewhen between" and infixed "to" between the range numbers and would also fade out the bar. --Dracontes (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for narrower time spans would be probably useful, for example only Neogene or even only Quaternary. Because many animals lived in very narrow time span and their graphs are reduced to a tiny line, like those ones extinct at the end of last glacial period. Darekk2 (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a comparison between the current design and my proposal. It is, of course, just a mock-up and not a working template. The new design is slightly narrower, and yet (I think) it is also more legible because: 1) it lacks unnecessary colouring and thin yellow strips, 2) temporal range is included in the bar, rather than floating in front, and 3) space is shared equally, solving the large K but cut-off N issue.

Permian–Jurassic

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

PreЄ

Є

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

What are your thoughts? Ypna (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike it, sorry. The coloring in the current template is actually the "official" colorings of the time periods used in geologic maps. The periods are not equal on the time scale because they are not equal in length in reality. I do appreciate your attempts to revamp it, however. Every once in a while we need to go back and scrutinize standard ways of doing things to make sure there are not better alternatives. Abyssal (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I understood that periods have standard colours, I didn't know they had to be included. The yellow columns should still be removed, unless they're also necessary or it is technically impossible. I thought the period lengths had no basis because of the shortness of PreЄ, although I see now the intended meaning of the missing line. Thanks for your honest critique. Proposal withdrawn. Ypna (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! <3 Abyssal (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken the points you mention into consideration, I produced this second design. It's mainly a fresher tweak of the current design. I have:

1. shortened the box of PreЄ. Given that only the very end of this period is shown, we may as well show just enough to fit 'PreЄ' in, in order to facilitate change 4.
2. removed the thin yellow bars. It crossed my mind that these could represent mass extinctions, however, this cannot be true because they aren't all in the correct places. Even if it were true, I don't think it would be necessary to include that level of detail on such a small template.
3. moved the range bar to the bottom, and changed it to black. I don't wish to make a fuss with this, but It does seem to make a bit more sense me to have it below, and is slightly more visible in black.
4. lengthened all boxes using the space made available by reducing the length of PreЄ. This maintains the relative scale of the periods, but it means that the S and N are no longer cut off (enlarge the image to see this).

Also, purely for the purpose of design, I removed the borders around the boxes. The text may need to be enlarged slightly. Ypna (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please link the "Ma" text to Megaannum. Sagie (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently attempted to add my first geologic range template to the article on Entoliidae. They originated in the middle Triassic and exist today. I went over the template, and was not certain how to indicate this... Middle Triassic|Neogene? Middle Triassic|0? I did some experimenting, and it looks like if I used "Middle Triassic|Neogene", that would indicate that the animal became extinct in the Neogene, which is not what I meant. Using a zero at least appeared to get the range bar out to the end of the Neogene section, but I wanted to template to "say" that the animal was still in existence, not just say, "Middle Triassic-0" (which, as words go, doesn't mean much to a non-geologist). I finally took a shot at using "Middle Triassic|Present", and it looks like I got what I wanted: a bar that goes all the way out to the end of the Neogene era. But it would have been really helpful if I didn't have to guess at how to get this outcome. Could someone add some text to the template usage page that specifically states that the use of the word "Present" will draw the range box out through the Quarternary? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 04:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: What I often do is to look at an article which already does what I want, and copy from that. For example, Coelacanth has {{fossil range|Devonian|Recent}}.

Valid values for the second parameter of {{Geological range}} are those that are recognised by the {{next period}} template. Its documentation is also incomplete, but it permits several ways of indicating that the lifeform is not extinct: you used "Present", which is one of the valid values; you could also have used "Holocene", "Quaternary", "Cenozoic", "Phanerozoic", "Now", or "Recent". These are all interpreted in the same way within {{Geological range}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found an answer eventually. I am wondering: couldn't the template also just tell editors what these terms are and for which parameter they are used? I would add some of this info myself but the template is protected. Having to guess or figure out the various viable entries for a parameter seems a bit silly when a simple sentence or two explaining them would be so easy and more appropriate. Can this be done? KDS4444^Talk 01:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template is protected, yes; but its documentation isn't. Template documentation is rarely protected, and then only in special circumstances. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a space before "Ma" so that this

{{fossilrange|231.4|0}}

231.4–0 Ma

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

shows a space between the "0" and the "Ma" (which it is not currently doing, at least in my browser).— DocWatson42 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks as if there's a new global bug in this template as every page I've looked at seems to have gone wrong. Can't we just revert to how it was at the last good status? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem wasn't in this but in one or more subordinate templates. Those have hopefully now been corrected, but someone's attempts to edit this one may have caused problems. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The temporary fix by User:Sadads caused the geology time-bar to disappear, leaving punctuation problems. For the record, the temporary fix was removed some time after your reply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@Sadads: The non-sandbox version of Template:Period_start has been fixed, so it should be good to remove the temporary fixes put in place today. Please undo both changes made today, November 17. Mamyles (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Mamyles (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamyles: Sounds good :) Glad it got fixed. Sorry I didn't respond sooner, was offwiki during the evening, Sadads (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I mostly work on af.wiki and I created two more versions of this template there, see its use on af:Necrolestes or af:Ornithischia e.g. and compare it to the corresponding pages here. The idea is that for many more recent fossils from the cenozoic and even mesozoic the standard time scale is so large that it becomes difficult to see when they lived. See e.g. af:Sjabloon:Meso-Caenozoic 200px and af:Sjabloon:Caenozoic 200px for the zoomed ranges. It would be better to integrate this in one template with if statements, but I did not want to mess up a template I don't quite understand so I just created seperate modified versions. Perhaps this is something someone might want to do here better? Af.wiki is small and we have to make do with what we have in terms of manpower, so I think we'll just keep it as it is now.

Btw, I just made up abbreviations for periods like paleocene, eocene etc. Does anyone know if there are any standard official abbreviations for those? Jcwf (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Geological range/linked has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request: The template should link Ludlow (the town) to Ludlow (the epoch) when it is given in the linked Geological range. Right now it can only link to the town of Ludlow, any other value to work around this throw unreadable stacked red errors.

Code example: | fossil_range = {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian}}

Workaround: A workaround at the moment is to place a replace statement around the taxobox replacing Ludlow with Ludlow epoch|Ludlow.

Example:

{{replace|{{automatic taxobox
| fossil_range = {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian}}
| image = Zosterophyllum.JPG
| image_caption = ''Zosterophyllum'' species fossils
}}|Ludlow|Ludlow epoch{{!}}Ludlow}}

Robin De Schepper (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin De Schepper: This is actually an issue with {{Geological range/linked}}, which is not protected. I went ahead and mocked up a fix in the sandbox of that template so that it will not display anything in parentheses. This is a bit cleaner than creating a special case just for Ludlow, as it will apply to any geological range that needs disambiguation. {{Geological range/linked/sandbox|Ludlow (epoch)|Devonian}} will now display as:

Ludlow to Devonian

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

If this works for you, I can go ahead and copy that to the main template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would only deal with some problem cases because the disambiguation may not be parenthesized. There are two solutions that I see:

• My preference is to accept that {{Geological range/linked}} only works for straightforward cases, as the documentation says. So in the Ludlow case, use the parent full template {{Geological range}}.
• Modify {{Geological range/linked}} to take two extra parameters, |link1= and |link2=, that can be used to supply the link(s) when they are different from the displayed name of the geological period(s).

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead and Robin De Schepper: Good point. I support for |link1= and |link2= to the template, so {{Geological range/linked|Ludlow|Devonian|link1=Ludlow epoch}} will now display as:

Ludlow–Devonian

PreꞒ

Ꞓ

O

S

D

C

P

T

J

K

Pg

N

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating the edit semi request as the page that needs to be edited is not protected. --Izno (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: The problem actually has to be in the main template, because unless I am mistaken, even when you call {{Geological range|[[Ludlow|Ludlow (epoch)]]|[[Devonian]]}} the error persists. Robin De Schepper (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin de Schepper: ah, but that's not how {{Geological range}} works. Its first three parameters are: first appearance, last appearance, text to display. So you can use {{Geological range |Ludlow |Devonian |[[Ludlow (epoch)|Ludlow]]–[[Devonian]]}}, which when put into a centre-aligned environment produces:

Alternatively, you can use the new version of {{Geological range/linked}} which Ahecht wrote as {{Geological range/linked |Ludlow |Devonian |link1=Ludlow (epoch)}}, which produces the same output:

Peter coxhead (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the date ranges appear to be shifted too far to the left of the time scale. This was seen in Leonerasaurus, and the same applies to Gracilisuchus. I feel that this may be a problem with the placement of the arrow. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if people can look at Gigantoraptor the date of 85 MYA which should be Cretaceous points firmly into the Jurassic. Something very wrong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an error in calling up the template, I think, Chiswick Chap. Does this change help? The syntax is shown at {{fossilrange}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fixed that instance (someone else's mistake, not mine); would it be possible to allow a dash or hyphen to indicate the range more naturally? --- it would fix many current and future errors, it seems. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This template needs a design overhaul for mobile users. There are many corrections that could make it both easier to read and understand:

• The Palaeogene abbreviation ("Pg") doesn't fit in it's box, and the 'g' is disconnected from the 'p'
• Font too small. It's difficult to tap on individual periods, and it's hard to understand
• Spacing could be improved. The outlined isn't spaced out enough, thus reducing understandability

–Adamilo (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experimenting on my own Android phone, the Palaeogene abbreviation is resolved by changing Pg into P_G.

If tapping on the links is an issue, is there a way the entire colored cell can be turned into a button?

——JavaRogers (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I'm getting the same error in the article "Eukaryote" as I described above in § Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2015. I can now edit the template, but my test did not fix the problem, so I'm turning to the experts. Would someone please be so kind as to fix this (again)? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DocWatson42: it was caused by the template {{Long fossil range}}, which had an ordinary space before "Ma", which gets removed, instead of a non-breaking space. It's fixed now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have been working on a new update for this template on Turkish Wikipedia, and now we have a working geological range template with just one module. No need any other templates and also {{long fossil range}}. So I combined the two templates without the need to add any new parametres. It simply detects the given numbers or period names and act on them. So I implemented the same module here: Module:Geological range and the examples can be seen here: User:HastaLaVi2/sandbox2. Should we update the template here? ~ Z (m) 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: ~ Z (m) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HastaLaVi2: I haven't done any serious work on these templates for a long time, so I'm not really qualified to say too much. However, I do think that it's a good idea to reduce the number of templates, since this makes maintenance difficult. So if you have a thoroughly tested module, I encourage you to go ahead. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So the new template could be like:

<includeonly>{{#invoke:Geological range|show}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

~ Z (m) 12:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add required code to /sandbox and provide some tests as /testcases to ensure it works as intended. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ:, done. Could you check? ~ Z (m) 14:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The testcases in the second half of the page look substantially different to the current version. Can you confirm if this is intended? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Yes, it is intended to expand the template to have {{long fossil range}} template merged with this one. So, I changed the second half of the testcases with the right template. As you can see, instead of two templates, now we could continue with only one. ~ Z (m) 03:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out if any existing uses will be affected, i.e. what difference will editors notice when this is deployed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only difference will be that on top of the bar, there would be two lines of text, instead of one. And that is because, right now when first two parametres are not numbers, we cannot get the years shown, this applies as the same when parameters deployed reversed. Meaning, if we want to year to be shown, we have to enter years. But then the era names are not shown. But actually almost on all taxoboxes, they were written in hand. We could get both the years, and the era names written in two lines under each other before the bar wih the new update, no need to add any extra hand-written text from now on. The bars remains exactly the same. ~ Z (m) 14:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other people's monitors but on mine the blue foreground against a purple background makes it very hard to see the letter "T" for Triassic. Perhaps changing it to a lighter color might help improve visibility. -- œ^™ 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ I want to explore this unaddressed comment from ten years ago. (I created a new section, because I don't know if we frown on bumping old threads or what.) It's true the blue to dark-blue T on a purple background is low contrast. I drafted up some comparisons:

(Number 4 is actually the full CGMW color palette, which the template's based off of anyway.) Number 3 is a small change, and number 4 takes a more extensive change. What say the community and the wiki experts?

EDIT: I'd like to add that the colored links become even harder to read on my Android phone. Cambrian, Ordovician, and Carboniferous in particular, but none of the font colors contrast well. I'm experimenting with the colors on User:JavaRogers, where the symbols are either white or black. The current result is:

———JavaRogers (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a third type of Geological range, which shows only Cenozoic. Many mammal species live or lived in Cenozoic, which spans only two short periods at the end of the scale. I think it's better to make third template showing only Cenozoic. Jack Jackie Pomi (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can anyone please change [[Megaannum|Ma]] to [[Year#Megaannus|Ma]]? 2A00:801:713:EE68:F149:7E8B:40A6:7E59 (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done WP:NOTBROKEN? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of how feasible this is, but could the template be altered so that when the given range is wholly within a single era, it zooms in and shows only that era's subdivisions. Currently, for most uses of the template I come across, the given range is so short that only an unhelpful line shows up on the template as it currently is. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]