Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

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

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 20, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 2, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 4, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 11, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
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

Biology High‑importance

	Biology portal Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evolutionary biology High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Extinction Top‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 27 November 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to End-Cretaceous mass extinction. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Massively glitched page--huge amount of content potentially lost

I just finished a large edit in visual editing mode and added dozens of new papers like "Deccan volcanism caused coupled pCO2 and terrestrial temperature rises, and pre-impact extinctions in northern China" and "No post-Cretaceous ecosystem depression in European forests? Rich insect-feeding damage on diverse middle Palaeocene plants, Menat, France". After I submitted my edit, I looked at the Citations section and the papers I added were nowhere to be found. After several hours of work. What the **** happened?! How did this glitch happen??? I remember copying and pasting every link to single reference I added into the citation tool!!! Is there any way to recover my work so I do not have to do it all over again???!!! Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about visual editing mode but my method in standard mode is to click preview first to check and paste and copy the revised article into Word if there looks like there might be a problem. This usually works to provide a backup, but not always. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the finger actually?

The picture with the finger is captioned "finger is below the actual Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary", but the same picture in Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary is captioned "Finger is on the actual K–Pg boundary". They can't both be correct. PointlessUsername (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They both have the same caption that they're on the the actual boundary. [1] [2]. Are you confused between these two images: File:LWA with Walt.JPG and File:Cretaceous Paleogene clay at Geulhemmergroeve.jpg? For the record, they're not the same pictures. _ZZ^Z 'S 03:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. the picture on this article has the full caption

"Complex Cretaceous–Paleogene clay layer (gray) in the Geulhemmergroeve tunnels near Geulhem, The Netherlands (finger is below the actual Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary);"

The one on the other article has the caption

"Complex Cretaceous-Paleogene clay layer (gray) in the Geulhemmergroeve tunnels near Geulhem, the Netherlands. Finger is on the actual K–Pg boundary."

They are the same picture and are described the same except for finger position. The one with people in it is irrelevant. PointlessUsername (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found time to go back and check the history of both pages. The image appears to have been added in 2013 to both this page and Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary, with the caption stating the finger is on the actual boundary. In 2017, someone changed the caption here to below. I'm assuming the correct description, then, is that the finger is on the boundary rather than below it, and I will change the wording on this article accordingly. PointlessUsername (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 5 in this publication (in Dutch) from the same locality says that the K/Pg boundary is at the change from light yellow to dark yellow rock, in which case the finger is just below the boundary (by a few mm). Mikenorton (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and corrected the location based on the publication. _ZZ^Z 'S 16:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic 1975 or later publication Iceland caldera forming impact

The article states large radial cracks in the native granite filled with liquid granite as Iridium with the K-T Iridium decay signature fell. Fractured quartz is also in the granite intrusions. That dates the formation of Iceland to the time of the event. The radial cracks are consistent with an impact. The granite covered any obvious crater. The impact was on the Mid Atlantic Ridge where the crust is thinnest.

Not in the article was anything about the Chixilube impact because it had not been discovered at the time the article was published. The Chixilube impact has been dismissed as the main source of K-T layer material, and the extinction. The volume of ejecta was not sufficient, and not volcanic ash. The Iceland caldera could produce it. Subsequently discovered is an antipodal jumble in the South Pacific Ocean floor. It was antipodal to where Iceland was at the time of the K-T impact. The Chixilube impact captures media attention merely because it's an easily recognized impact crater. Other fictions have been proffered to cover the deficits in the Chixilube story. Some claim a global firestorm could have supplied sufficient ash. There is no fossil evidence that fire was any more widespread than at any other time. Wood ash is very different from volcanic ash. The layer is not wood ash.

If anyone can find the National Geographic article excerpts would greatly improve the article.

75.215.158.207 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time

Some books I have read say it happened 65mya but I’m not sure if that’s obsolete or something so I’d like a clarification on the time, both are seen quite often in books but I don’t read papers of this kind so maybe it’s was last valid a decade ago. Houcaris (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest International Commission on Stratigraphy chart (2024-12) has the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary at 66.00 million years ago [1] . It used to be 65 MYA, and people still use that number colloquially, but the value has been revised. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Houcaris (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 13:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event → End-Cretaceous mass extinction – (alt proposal: Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction) – WP:COMMONAME, seems to be the most common name used in the scholarly literature, has around 3,800 hits on scholar [2] as opposed to:

around 700 for the current title [3]
2,000 for "K-Pg extinction" and "K-Pg mass extinction" [4] [5] "K-Pg event" gets around 1000 [6]
1,700 for "Cretaceous Paleogene mass extinction" [7]
1,500 for the now dated "Cretaceous Tertiary boundary event" [8] (with "Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary event" only getting around 200 [9]
400 for "end-Cretaceous extinction event" [10]

There is no current consistency regarding the names of mass extinction articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given its prominence, I am also suggesting "Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction" as an alt proposal if people don't like the main proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having done further investigating, I am now aware that "K-Pg (mass) extinction" is somewhat more prominent than this alt proposal, however I think this name is more clear and thus would represent a better article title than either of these proposals. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you did not check "K-Pg", or the other terms "X extinction", "X boundary event", "X event", only going for "X extinction event" and "X mass extinction" -- ~2025-32349-50 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more name variants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please note that this is a feature article under the present name. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One that hasn't been reviewed since 2008, one year after it was originally promoted, which is unsettlingly close to 20 years ago now. Wouldn't be surprised if it gets delisted in the upcoming Featured article review drive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has also grown to be almost three times the size of when it was originally promoted to featured article. Just because an article is old doesn't mean it is bad; while size obviously isnt a perfect measure of how good an article is, it seems this article has kept up with wikipedia's rising standards. Mongoliensis123 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose End-Cretaceous mass extinction. Neutral on alt Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction. Per google scholar results, both periods are usually mentioned, in full or with initials. Vpab15 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction for consistency. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose End-Cretaceous mass extinction and neutral on Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction. In my opinion, the most consistent way to name major extinction events is with the names of the geologic time periods they occur between. This makes it realitively easy for people to search for others without knowing which arbitrary colloquial name convention people used. K-Pg etc. makes it clear where the extinction is situated without picking an arbitrary "more important reference side" as the proposal End-Cretaceous mass extinction does (it emphasizes the Cretaceous and deemphisizes the Paleogene despite the actual event bounding both). K-Pg etc. convention is generally what I find in literature as well. This was supported by rudimentary bibliometric analysis. While your attempt used a subset of specific terms (e.g. "K-Pg extinction", "Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction", "K-Pg event" etc) I thought it would be more representative to remove all the specifics (rather than try to do an exhaustive partitioning of all the possible ways of phrasing it) and search simply for "K-Pg OR Cretaceous–Paleogene" vs "end-Cretaceous". This should give a better idea of the prevalence of the general terms over the prevalence of specific phrases. My results in OpenAlex searches indicate that "K-Pg OR Cretaceous–Paleogene" is more widely used (17,780 results) than "End-Cretaceous" (9,066 results). Even if we are being picky and assuming that some of these works may not refer to the extenction and assuming that things need to mention "extinction" to be about the extinction (an assumption which is demonstrably false as shown by searching for e.g "End-Cretaceous NOT extinction") the extinction AND (K-Pg OR Cretaceous–Paleogene) search still comes out on top with 1,575 results with End-Cretaceous AND extinction at 1,525 (with a greater proportion of old results and a lower peak). All of this seems to indicate that the K-Pg etc is the more commonly used term in current literature.

As a result of both this and the systemic nature of the K-Pg etc. naming scheme, I am against renaming the article to use the End-Cretaceous convention. Williamspete001 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Oppose End-Cretaceous mass extinction and neutral on Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction. I have hardly ever seen "End-Cretaceous mass extinction" on the internet or in daily life. Everywhere I have heard about the extinction, it has been refered to as either the K-Pg or K-T extinction. I do not remember a single time it has been reffered to as the End-Cretaceous normally. Per WP:UCRN the name should be either Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction, or Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. I personally prefer the first option because it is the most concise. The majority of wikipedia articles refering to this extinction call it by some variation of K-Pg. Even your with your search, variations on K-Pg or Cretaceous-Paleogene outnumbered End-Cretaceous. Mongoliensis123 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-support. I believe the name should be changed but maybe to something more like "Post-Cretaceous mass extinction". Does anyone else object? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 23:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction works, per above comments, as the actual event was the asteroid strike (and then came the extinction). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objections to moving to Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction?

Based on the previous discussions, it looks like there's not really anyone objecting to using "mass extinction" for consistency with other Late Ordovician mass extinction, Late Devonian mass extinction. If anyone objects I can make this a formal move request, but if not I can just move all the pages at once. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, could you please list here exactly what move or moves you are now proposing? — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Late Devonian mass extinction" article refers to the Kellwasser Event, which was the first of two extinction events during the Late Devonian. Mr Fink (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]