Talk:Anthropocene

I think the etymology offered for Homogenocene must be wrong. There is no way that "homo" Latin for man would be used in this way. "Homo" appears in compounds as "homini-," not "homo," which form is only used as an independent word ("Homo sapiens"). Homogenocene probably is constructed from the word "homogeneous" + "cene"; the article in which the term first occurred was referring to the homogenization of life across the planet because of transfers of organisms by humans. Homogeneous comes from "homo" "same" and "gen" "kind" in Greek. Metrodorus (talk)

I've removed the further reading list, as I don't think such a long list is adding any value here. If any of the publications are very important, they should be used for inline citations.

EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There are already (as of this writing) 178 reference footnotes, which IMHO is a lot. I notice that the above list is almost alphabetized by author's name (but Ozymandias in the Anthropocene by Dixon et al. is mentioned both at its alphabetical position and at the very end, and Klinkenborg is after Visconti). Maybe this list could be added as a "Bibliography" section, and in a common format with the author name(s) (if any) always in front. I would have suggested a scrolling list (see Help:Scrolling list) with a not too gigantic height (maybe 25 to 30 em), however MOS:SCROLL is against scrolling and collapsible lists in article space — though with a few exceptions: Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text (or are purely supplementary, e.g…). Auto-collapsing is often a feature of navboxes. Maybe this list is "purely supplementary information" in which case it might fall into one of the exceptions. — Tonymec (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

What would be an advantage of a bibliography list? If any of those references are important they should be used as in-line citations. I think "further reading" lists might have been important in the days before Google but nowadays anyone can easily find more information themselves if they want. Hence we are better off keeping things short and succinct and not bombarding readers with longs lists (which would then have to be curated and updated...). EMsmile (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

And so the proposed era has been put in the rubbish bin: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/climate/anthropocene-vote-upheld.html 182.239.146.143 (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, look like that. Good to see that someone has already updated the Wikipedia article accordingly. EMsmile (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Call me again in 30 years; I'm fairly confident this isn't the final word on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's assuming that we are here in 30 years Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't, I have some of these researchers for professors and they intend to propose it again in a few years once "conditions are more favourable" i.e. there are people more sympathetic to them in the committee. 139.57.217.252 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Also they only are not including it at this point, if we continue the route we are currently going down I would not be surprised like @Newimpartial said, that vote has not closed the book on this. Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Great Acceleration appears to be a subtopic of the Anthropocene. It currently has a section here as well as its own article, but the article is short and overlaps with this one. Should the article be merged into the section here? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the Great Acceleration subtopic still has a link to the "main article". Seeing that said article no longer exists, clicking said link just loads the Anthropocene article again. Should it still be there? CzechMapping (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've removed the wikilink from the text but couldn't figure out how to remove it from the infobox? EMsmile (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

1. The timespan beginning with 0,000076 is not in compliance with the final proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group, postponing the GSSP from 1950 to 1952: "The GSSP for the Anthropocene series/epoch and Crawfordian age/stage is proposed at 17.0 cm in core CRA23-BC-1F-B at the base of the dark lamina in a varve deposited in 1952 CE, at the level where the primary marker shows a rapid increase in ^239+240Pu concentrations." (BTW, the figure in the box presents
2. It is common to [date the https://stratigraphy.org/gssps/ GPPS] in years b2k ("present" = year 2000 CE), then the GSSPs have fixed timing without need to change it each year (see the edit from 3 March 2026). This is applied in the infoboxes of other geological ages (see Meghalayan), why not here?
3. To avoid misleading, the timespan should presented in all such infoboxes in units "Ma b2k (before 2000 CE)"
4. The lower boundary definition in the box is not in compliance with the timing - its origin is in another proposal of the anthropocene definition with dating 1592 (not a misprint).

Petr Karel (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)