Talk:Maastricht Formation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maastricht Formation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Maastricht Formation is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Paleobiota help

Code

This section contains pre-made code that can be copy and pasted into articles containing paleobiota tables. To save space, not all of the code is visible, additional code can be found by simply viewing this section's edit page.

Premade rowspans:

| rowspan="2" |

| rowspan="3" |

| rowspan="4" |

| rowspan="5" |

| rowspan="6" |

| rowspan="7" |

Replacement headings for "Presence" column

! Location
! Stratigraphic position
! Material

Replacement headings for "Taxa" column

Cell background colors

The background colors of the cells are a means to communicate the relevant organism's taxonomic status.

Color key

Taxon	Reclassified taxon	Taxon falsely reported as present	Dubious taxon or junior synonym	Ichnotaxon	Ootaxon	Morphotaxon

Notes
Uncertain or tentative taxa are in small text; ~~crossed out~~ taxa are discredited.

Red for reclassified and preoccupied

|style="background:#fbdddb;" |

Purple for taxa falsely reported as present:

|style="background:#f3e9f3;" |

Dark grey for discredited taxa:

|style="background:#E6E6E6;" |

Peach for Ichnotaxa:

|style="background:#FEF6E4;" |

Light blue for Ootaxa:

|style="background:#E3F5FF;" |

Light green for Morphotaxa:

|style="background:#D1FFCF;" |

Is the Maastricht Formation entirely Danian, not Maastrichtian?

According to the taxobox, the Maastricht Formation is dated 66–65.5 Ma. The Danian, according to the article on that stage, lasted from 66.0 to 61.6 Ma. Does this mean that there is no overlap between the Maastricht Formation and the Maastrichtian stage? Peter Brown (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Unfortunately the shifted date for the official K-Pg date leaves many previous studies that rounded to 66 or stuck to the well-accepted 65.5 Ma for the terminal K are now either referencing the wrong age or are in need of re-calibration, which seems uncomfortably like original research. For example, the vast majority of sources place the Hell Creek dinosaur fauna at 65.5 Ma, which is now Cenozoic! Either the original dating was not precise enough, or it was more precise than the official number, leaving us with T. rex in the Danian. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I removed the picture because it is based on the imagination of one user. Dutch biologists see it as speculative. Only one bone of this species has been found . Moreover, it is uncertain if it is a species, and we know nothing about it, so there is no basis for a drawing like this, best regards HenriDuvent (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]