Talk:Extinction event

I can't help noticing that this is in the conspiracy theory category? Is that really appropriate? I hesitate to change it in case there is a valid reason, but the article as it stands seems to be entirely science based, especially since the reference to Armageddon was removed. --Danfly (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Err, the article still mentions Deep Impact and Armageddon.

I'd like to see the article moved to "mass extinction" or "extinction event" (Wikipedia uses the latter). For some reason, ELE is used a lot by conspiracy nuts.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so it does. Forgive my blindness. --Danfly (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the edit comment, it was linked to from the baraminology article as this title. But if the title is used by conspiracy theorists, that would be a good angle to come at it from. ^{d hominem} 18:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge or change of focus

We have an Extinction article that is older than this. Do we need a separate article for mass extinctions? Possible courses of action:

• Keep the article and make it the main article on mass extinctions, renaming it to "mass extinction" or "extinction event". The conspiracy theory angle will be only a section.
• Keep the article and make it cover only the conspiracy theory angle (mass extinction stuff goes to the Extinction article).
• Merge the article into Extinction and have this title redirect to the CT section there.

Any suggestions?--ZooGuard (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge into extinction and expand the conspiracy angle as a separate section, I think. ADK^{...I'll deport your encyclopedia!} 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Тy^{communications wire} 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanding article

I added a bit on causes of events. Since this isn't Wikipedia, it might be nice to have a list of things which seriously or crazily have been advanced as reasons for mass extinctions. Particularly (1) fringe theories about actual extinctions particularly those which explain multiple extinctions, and (2) utter nonsense about how all life on the planet will be destroyed. There are various ideas about death from above that are probably covered in their own articles and could be linked. It might also link up a bit with the discussion of global warming. And probably feminists are ultimately to blame. Annquin (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

'God killing event'

Yes, Ragnarök is a god-killing extinction level event. Anna Livia (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any further examples? Anna Livia (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Another possibility

This: how plausible. Anna Livia (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating an article for the sixth extinction

Should there be a separate article for the sixth extinction? It's probably one of the most important issues facing humanity now. Plus, important species are known to be disappearing in this extinction. Rational Dude (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving the article

Shouldn't the article be moved to a more appropriate title like "extinction event", or "mass extinction"? I feel that it would be more appropriate and fitting. Almost no one calls extinction events "extinction level events". Rational Dude (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Not all extinction events meet the criteria of a mass extinction (as in a huge chunk of the biosphere being irreparably lost in a relatively short amount of time). Vee (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I get not moving the article to mass extinction, but why not just move it to extinction event? "Extinction level event" is kind of redundant, mostly because it implies that extinctions aren't an event or are minor in comparison. Rational Dude (talk)

As far as the claim " Almost no one calls extinction events "extinction level events"." is concerned - it's not true. You get lots of hits on that phrase on google. Whether one is better than the other is a different question - though WP goes with "extinction event".

In a wholly unscientific and utterly personal interpretation, "extinction event" brings to mind something which has happened; whereas "extinction level event" suggests some future potential catastrophe. But others may see it differently.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I kinda see where you’re coming from, but I still disagree. I suppose I meant to say that I’ve never seen anyone use the term “extinction level event”, and in addition, extinction events can still happen in the present (not to mention that the events brought up happened in the past), however, I find it nonsensical to imply that such events are only from the past. And the number of searches from google for this subject doesn’t really seem like a relevant point.

Granted, the sixth extinction is still debated as to whether or not it is occurring, but it will nonetheless become a present event sooner or later. Rational Dude (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said, the time thing is just a wholly unscientific and utterly personal interpretation, so it's not something I'm going to get into a debate over.

As an aside, you might consider following the indenting convention on talk pages.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by unscientific, but alright. I'm not trying to get into a debate either.

How do you indent talk pages? Rational Dude (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Use an initial colon ':' or one more than the previous comment (but reset when text column is down to 2-3 short words wide). Anna Livia (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Rational Dude (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)