Talk:myr

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Time Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Please see Talk:Mya (unit) for ongoing discussion re this article.LeadSongDog 16:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"present"

The usage of "present" here conflicts with the similar and very often confusing usage in radioactive dating, where "present" is fixed to 1950 "AD". Thus, we today would live in the year 64 "after (that simplistically defined) present". Regrettably, too many writers are unaware of that conflict. 93.199.20.131 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dead Reference link

i found http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/article/i1052-5173-22-2-28.htm at the same site, but haven't found anything (pertinent) by Mozley. TheNuszAbides (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing

This brief article is somewhat confusing in its current form and seems to contain some unsourced musings Geopersona (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fully agree. I am italian and I do not dare to judge an english text, but the first statement of the debate section seems the result of a mis-editing.

The statement

  Where "myr" is seen in geology it is usually "Myr" (a unit of mega-years). In astronomy it is usually "Myr" (million years).

is confusing because one expects a difference and finds an equality

Due to the noted capitalization problems, the symbol should never start a phrase. E.g. "Myr is deprecated" should become "The symbol myr is ..." (or "The symbol Myr is ..." since I do not know which is the correct one). The reference 1 cannot be accessed.151.29.189.70 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stubbornly refusing any scientific standard, English "scientists" confuse everything to everybody. BTW, "BP" is NOT "ago", but a term that is and must be reserved for radiocarbon dating and only in this relation means "raw/uncalibrated (Libby-) years before 1950). I wonder when eventually these "scientists" will grasp that. Even in that case one wonders, why not make it perfectly clear and write BNF for "before 1950", if meaning exactly that. Better are the European Iceberg publications from the Danish University, who clearly and unambiguously write b2k for "before the year 2000". That and only that is perfectly clear!! Thank You.95.90.202.103 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add Charts

Hi. I just came to this article from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Human_timeline and thought to contribute by suggesting that charts like these are added to the article since they give a sense of perspective over the units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1605:2298:998C:FB42:3ACF:782E (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]