Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

Active discussions
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
July 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 2, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 4, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
July 11, 2008Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 6, 2010.
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Size of the ImpactorEdit

See Talk:Chicxulub_impactor#Size_of_the_Impactor for a discussion.

Whatever you do, keep the two article in line with each other. (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I just updated the article Maastrichtian. All three articles should be kept in line with each other.CuriousEric 14:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Mammal info is datedEdit

The section on mammals is badly dated. ' Diversification of mammals stalled across the boundary.[citation from 2007] Current research indicates that mammals did not explosively diversify across the K–Pg boundary, despite the environment niches made available by the extinction of dinosaurs.[citation from 2003].' This is no longer the consensus. Instead diversification rates increased to around 3 times pre-event levels: Halliday, Upchurch, and Goswamil, Proceedings Biological Science, 2016 Jun 29; 283(1833): 20153026. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.3026, "Eutherians experienced elevated evolutionary rates in the immediate aftermath of the Cretaceous–Palaeogene mass extinction". . Other evidence corroborates. The idea that the CT event had little impact on mammal evolution rates is no longer viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Celsius to FahrenheitEdit

At one point in the article it is said

> At Brazos section, the sea surface temperature dropped as much as 7 °C (45 °F) for decades after the impact.

While 7 °C equals 44.6 °F, a 7 °C drop does not mean a drop of 45° F. Obviously a drop of 7 °C when the temperature is 7 °C results in a change of 44.6-32 = 12.6 °F.

Therefore a 7 ° C drop should not be described as a 45 °F drop in temperature. It should be described as a 12 or 13 degree drop in °F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct, but confusingly put. 0 °C = 32 °F and 100 °C = 212 °F; the difference between these temperatures is 180 degrees Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Celsius, so each Celsius degree is 180/100 or 1.8 Fahrenheit degrees. 7 × 1.8 = 12.6 so yes, a change of 7 degrees Celsius is a change of 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Peter Brown (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Why did only ectothermic large tetrapods survive the extinction event?Edit

The second sentence of the article is interesting but puzzling. Why would ectothermic species be advantaged rather than disadvantaged by their lack of ability to regulate their own heat?

Not sure, and it the distinction only seemed to matter for animals over 55 pounds. I assume it's because endotherms have higher food and water requirements, which would make it much harder for large ones to survive under such conditions. Their habitats would have been destroyed, and with them would have gone their food and water. If they didn't die immediately, they would have starved or been poisoned by food, water and air tainted with sulfur and other nasty things by the impact. Sumanuil (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Short description: define or distinguish?Edit

We have two proposed short descriptions for this article.

1. Mass extinction event ending the Mesozoic Era

2. Extinction of all non-avian dinosaurs

The whole short description system is very new, and may be changing, but I think this is where we are now.

Version #1 is a completely accurate definition of the subject. But defining the subject is not the purpose of the short description; its purpose is to distinguish this subject from others, especially as they come up in search results in mobile devices. (See Wikipedia_talk:Short_description#Should a short description define or distinguish?) True, the short description shouldn't be incorrect, but making it precisely correct shouldn't override helping the readers realize which article they want. Also, Mezozoic won't be familiar to a good number of readers; we'd have to define Mesozoic itself in the description to make it work, which is a catch-22, since it is largely defined by this event.

Version #2 has the most notable feature of this event, and nothing else; it leaves off the great many other genera that were wiped out. But the end of the era of dinosaurs is the most notable thing about this event. I can't see how leaving out how this event is best known can be justified as helpful to the readers.

Maybe we can come up with something that better defines the event without leaving out its best known fact? Remember that short descriptions are supposed to be <=40 characters. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have another suggestion:
3. End of the era of dinosaurs
This, like version 2, has what the subject is most known for. It might be better, since it doesn't duplicate the word "extinction" from the subject name.
Pinging User:Plantsurfer. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
As I indicated previously, there's much more to it than the end of the dinosaurs. 85% of all species died. I suggest that a better description would be "End-Cretaceous mass extinction" Plantsurfer 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest "Event that killed the dinosaurs and other species". It's hard to think of a short description for this subject that's both short and descriptive, but I think that would be pretty good. Partly because it's suitable for the lay reader, such as someone who doesn't know what "Cretaceous" means. Mudwater (Talk) 12:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm re-presenting Plantsurfer's and Mudwater's suggestions in keeping with the format as the others:
4. End-Cretaceous mass extinction
5. Event that killed the dinosaurs and other species
For #4, I agree that using Cretaceous is as unhelpful as Mesozoic; both are technical terms largely defined by the subject of this article, so anyone not knowing this subject is likely to not know these terms either. Using "mass extinction" in the short description has some of the same problem, though it's not as technically opaque as either Cretaceous or Mesozoic. It does fit the 40 character guideline.
I like that #5 is fully suitable for lay readers, and it does mention the non-dinosaur extinctions left out of #2. But it's less technically accurate, as avian dinosaurs survived. And, as noted, it's a bit long.
So far, I'm leaning toward #3. The "era of the dinosaurs" isn't fully technical term, but readily understandable to all, especially lay readers. I think it fulfills all we could ask of a short description. --A D Monroe III(talk) 20:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, let's go with version 3. Version 5 won't do because the event did not kill the dinosaurs; the dinosaur extinction was part of the event, not an effect of it. And "non-avian" is no more familiar than "Mesozoic" or "Cretaceous". Peter Brown (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"End of the era of dinosaurs" (i.e. #3) would work for me too. Mudwater (Talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks all. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event" page.