Anthropocene: New epoch? or just a new name?

This article:
Anthropocene: is this the new epoch of humans? | Geology | The GuardianSo, perhaps we have/perhaps we have not entered a new epoch.my question is: What are the ramifications of naming the new epoch?, is it just a clerical/filing issue? Could it equally be called the "Chocolate Teapot Epoch" or the "Epoch Formerly Known as Holocene"
The title we give it doesn't really affect the reality, or does it?Is the classification of this new epoch expected or supposed to provoke a reaction from humankind?
In which case should be called the "We've ruined everything Epoch"?This article seems to me to be hyperbole, and describes what is merely an exercise in (re)classification that will have no real impact. (Except for the alien archaeologist who finds the remnants of our civilisation and has a good laugh (with our future insect overlords) at how anthropocentric we were.)Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Well, but the alien archaeologist will find the ruins of our civilization. From a geological perspective, there'll be a sudden point where loads of species disappear, and when things like roads and cities, glass and concrete and plastic, not to mention the bones of lots of funny-looking apes, will turn up everywhere. From a geological point of view, it'll be as distinct as the KT boundary. So I think we can at least say that it deserves its own epoch, and since this is entirely our doing, "anthropocene" is quite a good name for it.

Makes more sense to just rename the Holocene as the Anthropocene.

It resembles demoting Pluto from "planet" to "something else". Somebody has too much time on his hands.

I guess these have been around long before concrete and plastic...

But have you noticed there's a lot more of them about than there used to be?