Skip to content

Conversation

joeroe
Copy link

@joeroe joeroe commented Sep 30, 2025

Adds era, a package providing classes and methods for formal representation of year-based timescales in R, such as the SI-based annus (ka, ma, etc.) system often used in palaeontology and the Before Present system often used in Quaternary palaeobiology and archaeology.

@willgearty
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for this suggestion @joeroe. I'm not entirely convinced this would be used much in deep-time paleontology, but I definitely see the usefulness for Quaternary work and archaeology. There is actually currently a proposal for a CTV for Archaeology (cran-task-views/ctv#64), and you should definitely look into making sure this gets included. However, given previous concerns about overlap between that potential CTV and this one, I would say we should probably avoid including era here in favor of including it there. If the Archaeology CTV doesn't work out, we could maybe look into adding a small Quaternary section to this task view.

@joeroe
Copy link
Author

joeroe commented Oct 2, 2025

Thanks @willgearty. I'm a maintainer of the proposed archaeology CTV and era is already listed there.

Could you say a bit more a out why it isn't useful for palaeontology? Perhaps I can work on those areas.

@zeileis
Copy link
Contributor

zeileis commented Oct 2, 2025

Thanks for the discussion. Just 2-3 quick comments from us as CRAN Task View Editors.

In cases where a certain package is clearly more geared towards task A rather than the related task B, then we recommend to only list the package in A. Then it should suffice to link the task views for A and B but one should try to avoid too many overlaps.

However, there are clearly packages for which listing in several task views is warranted because they are used frequently enough for both tasks, A and B.

Personally, I cannot judge which situation applies for the era package.

P.S.: We look forward to receiving an updated proposal for the ArchaelogicalScience task view 😁

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants