Talk:Middle Pleistocene

link in references section is dead

the link the references section is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.21.76 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this problem. I have changed the link to an archived version. GeoWriter (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Chibanian or Ionian

Google Translation of a web page http://www.sankei.com/smp/life/news/171113/lif1711130023-s1.html in Japanese linked by User:John3825 to supposedly support their change of Ionian to Chibanian on 13 November 2017:

To the birth of "Chiba Era" in Earth history Japan's first geological age name, Italy breaks at the international judging Tivanian 2017.11.13 14: 01 update On the 13th, it was learned from a stake in the stakeholders that the age of about 770,000 to 126,000 years ago in the history of the earth was named "Tivanian" (Chiba Era). A Japanese research team aiming for naming, applying for a stratum of Chiba prefecture to the international conference as a reference base of this age, broke competing Italy in the primary examination. Also announce it in the week. If it is decided officially it will be a great achievement that the name of Japan will be attached to the geological age for the first time. The Japanese team and two Italian teams applied for the International Geological Science Federation in June each year, the stratum of the reference site, which is the international standard of this age. The working group composed of experts from each country examined and voted on the 10th of this month, Japan was selected as a candidate place with the support of more than 60% of the whole. Three further stages of examination are expected until the official approval expected in next year, but in the past the conclusion of the working group covered only the exceptional case, which was virtually settled. In Japan, the National Polar Research Institute and teams such as Ibaraki Univ. Apply for the stratum of Ichihara city, Chiba prefecture as the reference place. We advocated the age name of Tibanian meaning the Chiba era in Latin. Italy had applied for two southern strata, aiming at the age name of "Ionian".

This translation shows that only a recommendation of the working group has been approved. This is still unofficial until it has been ratified/approved by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS). Until that offical approval is agreed sometime in the future, any official change to Chibanian is speculation and premature. Wikipedia is supposed to state facts not speculation about what may happen in the future. I recommend that User:John3825's edits about the change of name to Chibanian should be reverted (again). I have already reverted them once but User:John3825 applied his changes again. I will not get into an edit war. My comments also apply to User:John3825's edits about the Chibanian at Pleistocene and Template:Quaternary (period). GeoWriter (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ionian section

There is only the briefest mention of Ionian in reference material. It seems to be specific to marine deposits in the Italian stages. Is this an important thing to mention in this article?--Akrasia25 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the Ionian became really internationally significant only around 2008/2009, which is obviously after publication of the 2004 book you mention. I'll have a look in some more recent publications that I possess to see if I can find some source references for the existing unsourced Ionian text. Despite it falling out of favour for global correlation, I think the Ionian could continue to be included in this article for two reasons - (1) its historical significance as a once favoured GSSP candidate and (2) its continued status as a European regional subdivision of the Pleistocene. — GeoWriter (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

N-th stage/division of Pleistocene

Since time flows from origin to destination, this is the third (not second) stage in a sequence within the Pleistocene, after the Gelasian and the Calabrian. The Eos source supporting the first sentence of the article also doesn't explicitly mention an ordinal. Wakari07 (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Dates

I've been trying to make a chart of all this, and I'm getting very confused. As I understand from other Wikipedia entries:

• The Chibanian is the last stage of the Pleistocene
• The Pleistocene lasted from 2,580,000 BP to 11,700BP

Why, then is the end of the Chibanian given as 126,000 BP? That leaves a huge hole from -126000 to -11,700.

Sorry if I'm missing something, I'm a complete beginner at this stuff.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Chibanian → Middle Pleistocene – While "Chibanian" may now be the International Commission on Stratigraphy formal name for this time period, it is clear that "Middle Pleistocene", remains the most widely used name to refer to this time period even among academics, and thus should be the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME, which tells us that the title of articles should not be based on what is considered "official", but what is most common. Looking at google scholar search results of articles published in 2024, there are over 3,900 articles which use the term "Middle Pleistocene" , and about 80 that use "Chibanian" . It's not even close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Challenge to previous move

While I agree that "Middle Pleistocene" is a far more common name than "Chibanian", the official title, are we sure that this is necessarily the right move in representing this age/stage? I strongly feel like the official formal name of this timeframe should be what's displayed, and wouldn't practicing use of the popular informal name (not just for this age, but other ages/periods as well) be misrepresenting the geological community's stance? Why couldn't we just set up, or keep, "Middle Pleistocene" as a redirect to "Chibanian" instead? — Alex26337 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME trumps official names, and this is formal Wikipedia policy. For example the colloquial name "South Korea" is preferred over the official "Republic of Korea", and I would see no reason why this wouldn't apply here. The usage of "Middle Pleistocene" is just overwhelming over Chibanian currently. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Flaw in the infobox

the name of the age itself on the timescale in the infobox should not be a hyperlink to itself and should be bold, if i'm getting the vibe correctly from analogous wikipedia pages. i can't figure out how to edit that. could someone please go have a look, cheersSporeman4 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)