Talk:Roraima pollen paradox

Carbon dating?

Carbon dating is useless for dating billion-year-old minerals. "Radiometric dating" may be the words you seek. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of links to WP

Which ones are superfluous?

1. shale
2. Cerro Venamo
3. bedding plane
4. cleavage
5. hornfels
6. crossed nicols
7. cordierite
8. micaceous
9. quartz
10. biotite
11. Precambrian
12. Imperial AT-AT Walker
13. Mount Roraima
14. Mya
15. Gya
16. m.y.
17. microfossils
18. intruded
19. Cretaceous
20. Tertiary
21. Eocene
22. Miocene
23. Pleistocene
24. Mesozoic
25. Cenozoic
26. cleavage
27. matrix
28. dolerites
29. hornfels
30. allochthonous
31. macroscopic
32. fluviatile
33. meteoric waters
34. sandstone
35. Quartzite
36. percolating
37. metamorphosed
38. cordierite
39. andalusite
40. acritarchs
41. graphitized
42. atm
43. Raman analyses
44. Taphonomic
45. biological morphology
46. Limonite
47. bedding planes
48. talus slope
49. graded bedding
50. matrix
51. vascular plants
52. sedimentary rocks,
53. foraminifera,
54. tepui
55. aneroid barometer

--Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

With or without the WPL links, it's not a very easy piece for the layman to read. Is there an equivalent article at WP? If so, then I think it's probably unnecessary to go into so much detail as we're likely to be retreading the same ground. If it's not covered at WP (I couldn't find it with a couple of search attempts) it may be justified, but it would be better to use less jargon or where it's really necessary to (briefly) explain the meaning of terms within the article rather than prompting the reader to click back & forth between here & WP every few words. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no such article on this subject at WP or, as far as I can tell, at any skeptical website. (Hence why I wrote this.) Reducing the number of WPLs and adding explanation does seem useful, tho. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

On whether any of the WPLs (or alternate inline explanation) is unnecessary: did you know any of the terms before the WPL? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Of what use is that question? I'll answer anyway: the list starts With "shale" and ends at "aneroid barometer" with "sandstone" somewhere in the middle, so, yes, I knew some of them.

More seriously, the question should be "does each link help an interested reader understand the topic?"

The first question, in any such writing project, is "who is the audience?"

My own personal assessment is that many of those links are indeed helpful. The neat thing about hypertext has always been the way it allows reading to proceed uninterrupted, along with easy instant access to end-note type material. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I was asking to find out if the links were useful -- because if they explain something, then they've got a point.

I'm sure some of these could be better explained inline -- such as tepui. But I agree that most of them have useful pages of their own.

On the barometer: I was mostly mentioning it because it's old, but you made it into a point all its own. :P Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Moving on, I would lose the links to Mya, Gya, and atmosphere as a unit of measurement, but that's just me. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The obvious question

Given that the original sampling was 50 years ago - why hasn't there been another expedition and collection of new samples - things do get misunderstood/misinterpreted/unobserved contamination (the German female mass murderer who turned out to be contaminated swabs) and 'all the other reasons one can think of.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of interest? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)