View source for Talk:Timeline of the universe

{{old move|date1=17 December 2020|name1=Timeline of epochs in cosmology|destination1=Timeline of the early universe|result1=moved|link1=Special:Permalink/995293321#Requested move 17 December 2020|date2=7 January 2025|from2=Timeline of the early universe|destination2=Timeline of the universe|result2=moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1272636866#Requested move 7 January 2025}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Astronomy|cosmology=yes|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Mid}}
}}

== Error in [[Accelerating expansion of the universe|Acceleration time]]? ==
{{Nature timeline}}

You have an error in the acceleration time. That acceleration started 6.2 billion years ago, that is, 7.6 billion years after the Big Bang. [Note: Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.215.80.188|190.215.80.188]] ([[User talk:190.215.80.188|talk]]) 12:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)]
:FWIW - the above comment about the time the universe expansion began accelerating seems supported by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel "... about 7.8 billion years old, or about 6 billion years ago, some 1.5 billion years before our Solar System formed."<ref name="AE-20140829">{{cite web |last=Siegel |first=Ethan |title=Ask Ethan #52: How long has the Universe been accelerating? |url=https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-52-how-long-has-the-universe-been-accelerating-cb04f2e4e1fa |date=August 29, 2014 |work=[[Medium (website)]] |accessdate=April 1, 2016 }}</ref> - however, a note by astronomer Joshua Frieman at CalTech notes => "the Universe began accelerating at redshift z ~ 0.4 and age t ~ 10 Gyr."<ref name="Arx-20080307">{{cite journal |last1=Frieman |first1=Joshau A. |last2=Turner |first2=Michael S. |last3=Huterer |first3=Dragan |title=Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe |url=https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March08/Frieman/paper.pdf |format=[[PDF]] |journal=[[Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.]] |arxiv=0803.0982v1 |accessdate=April 1, 2016 }}</ref> [Note: "9.4" Gyr? determined using a cosmological calculator.<ref name="FML-2016">{{cite web |author=Staff |title=Cosmological Calculator |url=http://home.fnal.gov/~gnedin/cc/ |date= |work=[[Fermilab]] |accessdate=April 1, 2016 }}</ref>] - estimated time that expanding universe began accelerating may need clarification - comments from others welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::BRIEF Followup: The "7.8 billion years old" age of the ''accelerating expanding universe'' seems to be supported by comments made on the following talk page => "[[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#HELP: Clarify Time Expanding Universe Accelerated?]]" - see copy below:
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="float:none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px; display:table;">

Copied from "[[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#HELP: Clarify Time Expanding Universe Accelerated?]]":<br>

HELP: Clarify '''Time''' ''Expanding Universe Accelerated''?

Hello Josh:

IF POSSIBLE => may need help to clarify the best known '''Time''' the ''expanding universe began accelerating'' - this refers to several Wikipedia pages including "[[Accelerating expansion of the universe]]", "[[Timeline of the formation of the Universe]]" and "[[Talk:Timeline of the formation of the Universe#Error in Acceleration time?]]" - Times presented on these pages (and related ones) seem to ''vary'' and include "7.8 billion years old"/astrophysicist ESiegel<ref name="AE-20140829" />; "10 Gyr" (z ~ 0.4)/astronomer JAFrieman<ref name="Arx-20080307" />; "9.4 Gyr" (determined from z = 0.4 per [[Fermilab]] calculator)<ref name="FML-2016" />; perhaps other values as well - any help to clarify the '''Time''' the ''expanding universe began accelerating'' would be appreciated - in any case - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 12:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
:10 Gyrs is approximately right. It is going to occur at a redshift that solves the equation <math>\Omega_\Lambda = \Omega_m (1 + z)^3</math> Roughly, <math>\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7</math> and <math>\Omega_m = 0.3</math>, so it's actually closer to <math>z=0.3</math> which I think puts it closer to the 7.8 billion year estimate. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc#top|talk]]) 13:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
::@[[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and clarifications - they're *greatly* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 13:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
</blockquote>
::In any case - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 13:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} - corrected timing of "[[Accelerating universe]]" on the "[[Timeline of the formation of the Universe]]" article in the "[[Timeline of the formation of the Universe#Acceleration|Acceleration section]]" - to "7.8 billion years (6.0 Gya)" [ie, universe was 7.8 billion years old; 6.0 billion years ago from the present time] - should now be ok - please discuss if otherwise of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== [[Template:Nature timeline|Nature timeline]] ==
Is the {{tn|Nature timeline}} (the new graphic next to [[Timeline of the formation of the Universe#The first second|The first second]]) really appropriate? In this article, time is view more logarithmically and extends long past the present. The graphic presents time linearly, backwards from present, which doesn't seem directly comparable to the text in question. [[User:Tarlneustaedter|Tarl.Neustaedter]] ([[User talk:Tarlneustaedter|talk]]) 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply|Tarlneustaedter}} Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - although comments from others first may be indicated - and helpful - should note that discussions re a very similar timeline ({{tn|Life timeline}}) (at "[[Template talk:Life timeline]]") may also apply to the {{tn|Nature timeline}} - esp the comments re the "reverse ordering" of the timeline - which may be entirely ok after all, according to some commenters (at "[[Template talk:Life timeline#Reverse order? Chronological?]]") (ie, the most recent rocks are at the ''top'', not bottom, of a "[[Stratum|geological stratum]]" - and may represent the best scientific convention of such ordering in the responsible literature) - in any case - hope this helps in some way - and - Enjoy! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 23:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

==Merge/split==
This page has two problems: 
*it is a cfork of [[Chronology of the universe]]
*most of it is no longer about the "formation of the Universe" in the sense of physical cosmology. Of course, since everything is part of the universe, the formation of ''anything'' is technically part of the "formation of the universe". This is patently silly: "13.791 billion yrs (7.6 Mya): Betelgeuse forms" is no more relevant to the "formation of the universe" than would be "13.798999998 billion yrs (2 ya): World Trade Center is built". Such information belongs in a "list of stars", not a page on the big bang timeline. 
--[[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 20:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
:[[Chronology of the Universe]] doesn't have a timeline. If we merged this timeline with that article, it would just be unmerged again. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>]][[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 20:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
::I agree with Dbachmann that putting a bunch of galaxies', stars', and planets' ages in this article feels unnecessary -- especially since they all have to be kept up to date as more research is done on each of those celestial objects, and on galaxy/star/planet formation ain general. What about just including the oldest known galaxy/quasar, star, and planet? [[Special:Contributions/2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70|2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70]] ([[User talk:2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70|talk]]) 21:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

:::It's an exact match for what should be at the redirect page -->[[Epoch (cosmology)]] except for the lead section. It should be moved there and a lead written to suit. <span style="color: green; font-size: small; font-family: Impact">~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]]</span> 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

== [[:File:CMB Timeline300 no WMAP.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon ==
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that [[:File:CMB Timeline300 no WMAP.jpg]] will be appearing as [[Wikipedia:picture of the day|picture of the day]] on October 26, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at [[Template:POTD/2016-10-26]]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the [[Main Page]].&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 13:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
{{POTD/2016-10-26}}

== Dating question  ==

The diagram at the beginning (today's picture of the day) says that "Big Bang Expansion" is 13.7 billion years.   Wouldn't this just be the age of the universe, which, per information elsewhere in the article, would be about 13.8 billion years? [[User:John M Baker|John M Baker]] ([[User talk:John M Baker|talk]]) 02:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
:The picture might be a little bit out of date. [[Special:Contributions/2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70|2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70]] ([[User talk:2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70|talk]]) 20:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

==Habitable Epoch==

I'm confused why it matters that the early universe was of the right temperature for liquid water at some point. There wasn't enough oxygen for water to exist, nor enough silicon or other heavy elements to form rocks, nor enough carbon or nitrogen for any CNOH-water life to evolve. It isn't made clear why a habitable temperature would matter, or make that span of time Habitable. Today when we find gas giants in the habitable zones of their stars, we don't call them habitable because they don't have rocky surfaces and are mostly made of hydrogen -- just like the early universe. [[Special:Contributions/2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70|2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70]] ([[User talk:2601:441:4102:9010:6C02:87A4:248A:9E70|talk]]) 20:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
:Someone added it, citing an article that it's possible that life commenced that far back. I suspect it qualifies as [[WP:FRINGE]], particularly since temperature isn't the only important variable, entropy matters too. [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
:The appearance of water is significant.  1) It suggests the existence of heavy elements that far back suggesting the process of supernovae was well underway in the Universe.  We can also extrapolate the existence of other key elements that make up planets like our own.  2) Water is a key component in the formation of life on Earth.  We can extrapolate that it might also be a key component on other planets as well.  While it is true we find gas giants in habitable zones we do not rule them out as being unsupportive of life.  Life on this planet started in the ocean so a water planet may actually contain life especially if it is in a habitable zone.  Also there are so many extremophiles on this planet many of which have ancestors to a time when oxygen wasn't dominant in the atmosphere, that we cannot exclude the potential for life forming in what seems to be inhospitable places. [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 06:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::I moved the content summarizing the work of Avi Loeb about water during the cosmic dark age to [[Extraterrestrial life]]. In this article such a claim would clearly fail the policy that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources|Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
==Is this correct?==
13.733 billion years (66 Mya): first mammals. - Is this line corect. I thought that it was 160 million years ago --[[User:Daduxing|Daduxing]] ([[User talk:Daduxing|talk]]) 07:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
:No, and it's also not relevant to the article. Removed. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod</sup>]][[User talk: Serendipodous|<span style="color:#0000bb;">ous</span>]]</b> 10:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

== Age of stars ==

It seems that the age of many stars mentioned in the timeline is wrong by orders of magnitude. Massive stars - like Mu Cephei, Beta Orionis, etc. - cannot be up to 10 GYr old.
<small><span class="autosigned">--[[User:Geheimrat Viper|Geheimrat Viper]] ([[User talk:Geheimrat Viper|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Geheimrat Viper|contribs]]) 22:14, 15 October 2017‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Signing-->
:Hmm. Yeah, Mu Cephei is 10 million years old, not 10 billion years old. Lemme look at the timeline (sic) of those additions having been made. [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 03:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
::I removed Rigel and Mu Cephei. They'd been there for years, I don't have the patience to track down who added them to see what else they did. Don't spot anything else as egregious as those two, if you spot anything else, fix it or mention it here. In general, I think the timeline is far too dense and could use at least an order of magnitude thinning down. [[User:Tarl_N.|<span style="color:green;">'''Tarl N.'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal;">discuss</span>]]) 03:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

== Dark Energy Acceleration ==

This article claims the Dark-Energy Dominated Era began at 7.8 Gy of cosmic time, without a citation. Elsewhere on the Wiki, the time is given as 9.8 Gy cosmic time, with a citation from 2006. I'm correcting this article by moving the Acceleration sub-headline to 9.8 Gy time. Until a source for the 7.8 Gy figure can be found that is more recent than 2006. [[Special:Contributions/2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0|2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0]] ([[User talk:2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0|talk]]) 04:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
:In fact, I found a source from 2008 giving the figure 8.8 Gy cosmic time (5 Gya, z=0.5) and put the Acceleration there. [[Special:Contributions/2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0|2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0]] ([[User talk:2601:441:467F:E7D2:D041:8BC2:333D:F4B0|talk]]) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

== Should this article be changed to "timeline of the past"? ==

Given that the article of events in the future is called "timeline of the far future", wouldnt it make more sense for this article to be called "timeline of the past"?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/47.227.192.150|47.227.192.150]] ([[User talk:47.227.192.150#top|talk]]) 21:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Requested move 17 December 2020 ==

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Synoman Barris|<span style="font-family: Bell Centennial; color:Red; text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Megan B....</span>]] [[User talk:Synoman Barris|<span style="Green">''<sup>It’s all coming to me</sup>'' till the end of time</span>]] 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
----


[[:Timeline of epochs in cosmology]] → {{no redirect|Timeline of the early universe}} – I'm not sure if this is the best title for this article, but I definitely need it needs to change. If you have any ideas on what it should be, then please let me know. [[User:Interstellarity|Interstellarity]] ([[User talk:Interstellarity|talk]]) 00:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [[:Timeline of epochs in cosmology]] → [[:Timeline of the universe]] (which should be lowercase, and [[:Timeline of the Universe]] should be a redirect to [[:Timeline of the universe]]) with a hatnote to [[:Timeline of the far future]] (which is totally crystalball listcruft, but it's ''featured'' crystalball listcruft). "Timeline of epochs" is not a good title; it'd be like "Timeline of years", just kind of awkward. The unit of measurement of the timeline shouldn't be in the title of the timeline. What it ''is'' is a timeline of the universe, and the current dab page doesn't need to be a dab page, so let's just give it that title. And besides, we don't know if the time period between the Big Bang and the present is the "early" universe or the "late" universe :-) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Levivich|harass]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contribs/Levivich|hound]]</sub> 06:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed.  <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

== Polaris is not 7 billion but 70 million years olds ==

Should we remove this? It's probabbly an error in conversion of scientific notation. Also Capella is 590–650 Million years old and is listed here as 8.08-8.58 billion years (5.718-5.218 Gya)[[User:Celestialobjects|Celestialobjects]] ([[User talk:Celestialobjects|talk]]) 03:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yeah. Go ahead. <b>[[User:Serendipodous|<span style="color: #00b;">Serendi</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|<sup><span style="color: #b00;">pod</span></sup>]]<span style="color: #00b;">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</span></b> 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

== Could the size of the universe be added at different time points? ==

I stumbled on this page completely by chance, but I love it. What I kept thinking, though, was "how big was the universe when this or that thing was happening?"
Could this be added, or would it mess up the structure of the article, or is it just impossible given current knowledge? This isn't my area of expertise, so I'm reluctant to add anything myself, but if another editor could make suitable changes that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. [[User:RomanSpa|RomanSpa]] ([[User talk:RomanSpa|talk]]) 18:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

== Age of the universe??? ==

While yes, I know the current agreed-upon answer is 13.8 Billion yrs, but the JWST took pics of really young galaxies, that were basically fully formed really close to the big bang. Should we try changing the big bang time to 26.7 billion? or do we not have enough evidence for it? I guess you would need to recalculate the rest of the events to correspond with it [[User:Periodicpro18|Periodicpro18]] ([[User talk:Periodicpro18|talk]]) 19:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

:The only problem is that there isn't a consensus at the moment around whether the Universe is 13.8 billion years or 26.7 billion.  At the moment the science community is still coming to grips with what JWST is finding so it would be imprudent to make such a change until a consensus emerges.  Then changes of that nature can be made. [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 07:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is a consensus that the age of the Universe is about 13.8 billion years. There is no credible evidence and no consensus reviews that give any other value. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

== Epoch (cosmology) not defined ==

The page [[Epoch (cosmology)]] redirects to this page, but this page does not define "epoch" for cosmology. As far as I can tell this entire article uses the word "epoch" as a synonym for "era" rather than as one specific time as would be correct of an [[Epoch]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

:* [[Epoch (astronomy)]]: In astronomy, an epoch or reference epoch is a moment in time used as a reference point for some time-varying astronomical quantity.
:** The claim is referenced and verified.
:* Ryden, B. (2016). Introduction to Cosmology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
:** Clearly uses the word as a synonym for "era", eg "During some epochs..."
:[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 7 January 2025 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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.''' moved per the consensus below, also noting RH's comment about recent discussions. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 02:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
----

[[:Timeline of the early universe]] → {{no redirect|Timeline of the universe}} – This article covers the whole universe rather than one part of it. [[User:Interstellarity|Interstellarity]] ([[User talk:Interstellarity|talk]]) 00:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;[[User talk:Reading Beans|<span style="color:#333">'''Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia'''</span>]] 06:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;<span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 02:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

:Why do we need both this article and [[Chronology of the universe]]? Why don't we solve the naming problem by merging this article with that one? [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::There is no problem, this stand-alone page is a detailed timeline. The page you link to is heavy on the math and textual descriptor while the timeline is much more easily read and understood. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 05:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you help me understand what you mean by "stand alone page"? These are both articles. Why do you call this one "detailed timeline" when the Chronology is more detailed?  Why do you say "heavy math" when the Chronology article as only one section with any math?
:::These articles seem structurally the same. The "timeline" version has a ton of extraneous detail about star dates, is poorly sourced, and is missing many opportunities to summarize other articles. The summary sections in Chronology are far too long. Merging these could create a best of both worlds. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also:
::* [[Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe]]
::* [[Graphical timeline of the Big Bang]]
::* [[Timeline of the far future]]
::* [[Detailed logarithmic timeline]]
::[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Starting off.  All the information that used to be in timeline was my work.  It's all gone and it has turned this timeline into a carbon copy of the other Chronology of the Universe timeline.  Not only that but it has now made this chronology useless as far as access to information goes.
::Has anyone ever tried to find sports information on Wikipedia.  Oh its there but its like researching 5 million articles to find one thing.  That's horrid.  I know because it was precisely because I was having trouble locating the information I was seeking, that I decided to put so many events of the Universe into this timeline.  It put information about various galaxies, stars, planets and celestial objects from our own Milky Way Galaxy on the finger tips.  Also it provided a very wide expanse to the story of the Universe which this timeline is actually supposed to be about.  Bells and whistles aren't what we are here for.  We are here to make information easily accessible to people looking for it.  Timelines help because they offer perspective as well as provide quick access to information.  That is why it should be in there.  Putting up a link to a list of distant objects isn't enough.  If that is what the timeline is there for just delete the whole thing.  There are how many objects in the list of distant objects and we are making someone seeking a specific galaxy spend more time finding it instead of putting it in the timeline where its easily found? Really?  The goal is not to put all those objects into the timeline but the ones that count.  The ones that change things like this quasar which was until 2000 the most distant object we had information about.  I'm hoping to restore some of that lost data because this timeline is about the Universe and objects don't stop being formed between 12 billion years and 5 billion years.  I mean really why not just remove all the data between 1920 and 1940 in the Timeline of Modern History and say there we go.  And put links to each year so people can just go off and spend days looking for information.  That is why its important.  That is why its there.  Because at the moment there is a celestial body desert in the timeline.  And that really isn't a good thing. [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 07:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:::We're not here to make pages based entirely off your personal sense of "what counts", or mine, or any other single individual's. You might find it significant that a particular quasar was "until 2000 the most distant object we had information about"; someone else might come along and ask, "Why is the year 2000 the cutoff point there?" You might disparage "bells and whistles", whereas someone else might see this timeline and think that it is ''all'' "bells and whistles". We're all bringing our biases to the table when we edit, of course, but [[WP:SYNTH|we have to do better than treating the encyclopedia like a pet project]]. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Actually it clearly indicates that until 2000 that was the farthest we knew.  That is why its important. Because the quasar was first detected in the 1980s meaning until 2000 that was it.  That is a major marker in the history of the Universe.  Because all of the distant objects you will find on the distant astronomical objects are a product of the last 25 years.  And some of those objects are now leading to questions about the very age of the Universe and begging the important question, was galaxy formation and star formation much faster near the beginning of the Universe.  Some questions are even being raised about whether there was a Big Bang at all.  These are important objects to point out.  They fit your description of "what counts". [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 06:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Again, you're basing this on your own opinions about what is important, not anything that we could verifiably say is the consensus among scientists. We need something like a review article or a textbook that says "discovery A was important for reason B". [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 19:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination language. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 05:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' <s>but I would prefer if we just keep [[chronology of the universe]] which is more in depth.</s>, per recent discussions on this topic.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 20:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:<small>'''Relisting comment''': Seeing that this is a high vital article, I am relisting for more participation. Best,  [[User talk:Reading Beans|<span style="color:#333">'''Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia'''</span>]] 06:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy|WikiProject Astronomy]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics|WikiProject Physics]] have been notified of this discussion. [[User_talk:Asukite|<span style="color:Purple;font-size:medium;font-family:Bradley Hand ITC"> ASUKITE</span>]] 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:<small>'''Relisting comment''': Let's give the WikiProject participants at least a week to come by and comment if they'd like. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]</span> 02:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:Hah!  Here is a funny thing.  When I first conceived of the timeline years ago, that is what I had it as - A Timeline of the Universe.  It was changed when someone else thought it should reflect something else. [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 07:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

== Proposal to delete many "XX billion years (YY Gya): foo forms" ==

The article has line after line after unsourced line like: 
* 1.39 billion years (12.41 Gya): S5 0014+81, a hyper-luminous quasar, forms
Very few of these are notable as items on a timeline of the universe. I propose to remove any that are not related to the timeline changes. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:I applied this to the "Matter era". I think it makes a big improvement. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:And if you go to the link its sourced.  The reason they aren't sourced is first each is linked to an article and everything in those articles are sourced.  So to argue it isn't sourced is baloney.  I wouldn't put anything on a timeline without being sure it was a sourced subject in Wikipedia, which they are.  Besides if you decided to go that route then all your timelines would be defunct of information.  By the way, "a hyper-luminous quasar" is how S5 0014+81 is described in the article.  I only used information in the article.  So if that isn't sourced in the article then the real issue probably starts there. 
:Secondly, I've tried to footnote all the information I provided but I had a problem.  They all ended up messed up in final edit because I'm not very clear on how to make the reference appear in the final published form.  I use footnotes normally but Wikipedia's process isn't easy to figure out even in tutorial form.  If I do references someone else with better understanding of the process would have to complete it.
:Anyway I've already decided to walk away from Wikipedia creation.  After seeing all that good information simply wiped off, I decided better to make my own timelines and let you guys go off and "improve" the timelines as you see fit.  Just remember two things.  !) Just linking to lists of stuff doesn't work.  If that is the case you don't need a timeline since I can go off and do the searching for information myself without it.  You've plenty of links in the articles themselves.  Mind, linking does make sense but linking to lists should not be the way to go (example the sports timelines).  Its lazy and it doesn't make information more accessible.  2) The purpose is to make things accessible.  If there isn't accessibility one might as well treat Wikipedia as one primary source and slowly arduously find the stuff you need.  Either way I'm done with Wikipedia creation.  All that work for nothing.  Sorry but I need to move on.  Not you.  Me. [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 17:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::You have focused on the sourcing issue, which technically is not as you suggest. According [[WP:Verify]],  {{tq|Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.}}
::The bigger issue is "what is notable for the timeline of the early universe"? In my opinion notable items are ones that alter the character or course of the universe. A list of star birthdates is not notable. Such a list has items only because some observation was published, not because the observation is important for the timeline of the early universe. The list becomes repetitive and obscures those items that do alter the universe.   (Strictly speaking the early universe includes no stars, but I assume we will succeed in renaming the article).
::We already have dozens of [[Lists of stars]]. We don't need this article to be yet another one. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The notable celestial objects include the earliest objects in the Universe - Methusaleh Star and the latest far distant galaxies we've been uncovering which are redefining perhaps even changing our perspective of time and space in relation to the Big Bang; some of the distant galaxies we've discovered through Hubble which led to new terminologies and re-visitations of how galaxies first evolved (hyper luminous objects and lyman galaxies); the most distant planets which indicate the existence of planetary bodies in the deep past; the Galaxy Era where we have objects we are familiar with like Omega Centauri, M87, and the Cigar Galaxy all which have merit for discussion in any timeline; the Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy because these are two key systems which apparently have a future relationship with each other.  These are notables.  Why I pointed out the Quasar 2000-330,  It formed 11.4 billion years ago but that was the field of our vision until the year 2000 (two decades ago).  That is what is notable and my choices were mostly based on these conceptions.
:::Finally you say it becomes repetitive.  But that is the point.  Once the Universe begins to settle out the formation of objects does get repetitive.  Once Earth settles out 4.5 billion years ago, the story becomes one of super continents forming and ice ages all repetitive but significant nonetheless  That's the story of the Universe.  That's what a timeline is supposed to project.  Granted one needs to avoid millions of stars and planets in the name of they formed but that is still the story of your Universe. [[Special:Contributions/174.5.4.23|174.5.4.23]] ([[User talk:174.5.4.23|talk]]) 19:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I got a suggestion before I leave.  Before you strip whole sections of information on the basis of citations why don't you fact check and add the references.  That is what Wiki creation is about isn't it?  Improving upon the postings.  If there is no citation then throw it out.  But if you had done so you might find all details were based on cited evidence.
:::Anyway As I said I'm done.  Davrosin12 is going to stop functioning because as far as I am concerned 8 months of information doesn't matter.  I will make my own timeline that reflects the reality of a universe that has a very long story.  Wish you well.  
:::Just remember:  Just linking lists doesn't do justice to a timeline.  Remember always that the point of a timeline is to tell the history of what that timeline is about and to ensure information is accessible (key accessible).  Someone shouldn't have to treat Wikipedia like one big primary source where you have to dig for years seeking the information you need.  Toodles. [[Special:Contributions/174.5.4.23|174.5.4.23]] ([[User talk:174.5.4.23|talk]]) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have gone one step further.  I've removed all uncited material from the timeline.  It was my work to begin with so makes sense I make that change.  I am sure now people can put cited material in and it will look as good as it did before.  If that stuff is restored then you are essentially arguing that uncited material should be put on this timeline.  In which case an important argument towards removing the information is convoluted.  I would prefer someone else fix this timeline up and make contributions to it and write it in their own words, not mine.  Since all the stuff removed was my own contribution, I would prefer it not be restored as I wrote it because I don't want my efforts to be a part of this timeline.  Please respect my wishes.  Thank you for allowing me to enjoy the pleasures of creating for Wikipedia and now that contribution is at an end.
:::PS.  Can someone tell me how to pull the retired plate up.  I can't find it and I do want to retire from contributing to Wikipedia. [[User:Davrosin12|Davrosin12]] ([[User talk:Davrosin12|talk]]) 05:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)