Yes Cid....demonstrate your lack of understanding further
For those interested in the process and a clear message that this is definitely not a fait a compli the following paper last year
Finney, S.C. and Edwards, L.E. 2016, The Antrhopocene epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? GAS TODAY, V 26, 3, pp 4 -10
Note that Finney is the Chair of the International Commission on Stratigraphy and Edwards is the Commissioner, North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature. In other words two members of the ICS who will be making the decision.
The proposal for the “Anthropocene” epoch as a formal unit of the geologic time scale has received extensive attention in scientific and public media. However, most articles on the Anthropocene misrepresent the nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which is produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and serves as the basis for the geologic time scale. The stratigraphic record of the Anthropocene is minimal, especially with its recently proposed beginning in 1945; it is that of a human lifespan, and that definition relegates considerable anthropogenic change to a “pre-Anthropocene.” The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
One other important point made by the authors is that because there has been such a short interval from 1945 to present there is very little in the way of preserved sedimentary record of any thickness that can be used as support for the argument.
In the paper the authors further point out the process....lots of additional work to prove up issues and discuss amongst the 20 voting member countries of the ICS. It is pretty clear this is not a done deal. And further it then has to go to the Executive Committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences for a vote in order to become official. I've read somewhere that it could take another 4-5 years to assemble the technical data in support of the AGW recommendation from vote which is necessary before the ICS will even begin their debate.
It isn't necessary for the term "anthropocene" to attain the lofty status of being an officially approved Epoch before people can use the word anthropocene.
Of course that is a possibility and one that is recommended by a host of stratigraphers who recognize the problem with a formal identification. The problem you face now is what is the proper defintion for it? What time frame etc. As Finner and Edwards point out this is more a political decision than a scientific one.