Jump to content

Talk:Prehistoric technology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title?

[edit]

Compare "primitive technology" with

"Primitive technology" is ambiguous, as any technology preceding today's tech could be considered "primitive" by comparison. Ancient technology, and other early technology, though not included in the outline, could be considered primitive by modern standards.

How about Outline of prehistoric technology? Prehistory is defined as the period before recorded history (i.e., it predates written records / writing). The Transhumanist 01:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topics

[edit]

This is a holding area for entries that need to be placed in the body of the outline above (as entries)

Categorizing items before identifying what's new / duplicates / what's relevant

Extended content

Art

Art / religion

Tools

Periods

Types of tools

Weapons


Fishing

Hunting

Mining

Clothing

Medicine

Language / numbers

Copied from previous article version, here. –Quiddity (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this list in workspace User:CaroleHenson/Timeline of prehistoric technology to be used either as a start of a timeline or as a checklist for inclusion into this article. Any help is appreciated - adding content or checking in from time to time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List vs Article

[edit]

This page was recently changed from a list (titled "Outline of prehistoric technology") into an article (with paragraphs copied from History of technology). Hence it currently has a {{cleanup-rewrite}} at the top.

Pre-change, it looked like this. This is just after the large "Topics/to-do" list was removed, which I completely agree with, and I have pasted a copy of that directly above.

It was originally structured as a List of the "Outline" type, by its primary author (User:CaroleHenson), hence there were no large paragraphs, and all the contents are in a nested-hierarchical-list format. This follows the typical structure of all the Outlines.

Most of the content is of a historical/chronological nature, so it might also be considered an example of (or contain formatting structures of) a Timeline (another type of List).

I would suggest that the page is best left in its previous/original list-format, and not radically changed into an article-format.

Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text from list / outline format to prose, made some corresponding edits and tagged where citations are needed. I made this early in my Wikipedia history here and see some issues with clarity and continuity that I'll work on, but I took of the clean-up tag since the major formatting and editing issues were addressed.
If there are other pointers, though, besides continuity and clarity, let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article version was moved to article space by someone, and so I dug the outline version out of the history and put it back here for further development as an outline. Probably would have been better to keep the outline here (with its history intact), and develop the prose version in article space. The Transhumanist 00:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from Ancient technology

[edit]

Prehistoric technology and History of technology are much better articles and cover this subject. This page was originally (I think) a dab page.Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "prehistoric" means "before the advent of a written historical record", and "ancient" refers to the earliest period of a historic era, i.e., after the advent of a historical record. A "History of ..." page should be an overview of a topic, that spans the entire arc of time from prehistory to present day. "Prehistoric ..." and "Ancient ..." should be subarticles of "History of ...". If that's not how the pages are actually structured, they should be edited to reflect this structure, not blindly merged. Hi-storian (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:High-storian, I know that. Did you read Ancient technology? It covers prehistory, ancient history, medieval China, etc. I'm not talking about a blind merger, I'm saying that the prehstorical technology material should go in Prehistoric technology. Do you agree? Most of the rest of the coverage of Ancient technology is actually covered in History of technology, so Ancient technology basically is a duplicate of two articles. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller Okay ... the proposal that I see on the front of the page is to merge (the entire article) Ancient technology into this article. My understanding of the word "merge" is to combine two or more articles into a single article, and eliminating the others. (Leaving only redirects from the old titles to the surviving article.) That I do not agree with for the reasons stated.
If that is not what you're proposing, and you intend to move only prehistoric material into this article, and post-ancient material into the appropriate subarticles of History of technology, and perhaps pruning excessive ancient material from History of technology into Ancient technology so that History of technology functions as an overview, and Ancient technology is a more detailed review of the time period, and that all three articles fulfill their intended roles, then yes, I certainly agree. I'm currently involved with doing the same thing on another topic.
I am sorry if I may have stated the obvious, but your proposal and your comments seemed to indicate that you were unaware of the distinction. I was simply trying to clarify that for you. You may also want to give Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science a courtesy heads-up on this. I don't know why this page and Ancient technology weren't tagged by that project, but History of technology is. You should also give a heads-up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology who has tagged all three pages, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology, who has tagged this page only. Not all WikiProjects have been consistent about the tagging of their pages, something I'm also trying to straighten out in another topic. Hi-storian (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea about the tagging. I've been involved in archaeology one way or another for over 30 years, so yes, I understand all this. I'll try to notify those groups tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller Ah! Well, then, go to it! The way you tagged the article and the brief blurb you initially gave left the impression that you were going to dump irrelevant material into this article. I would not have used the tag, but placed a description of your proposal here and notify the WikiProjects. Sounds like we're on the same page, now. Happy editing! Hi-storian (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the wrong template was used; { { Template:Move section portions from } } is more precise. Even more precisely, my feeble mind is failing to find the relevant section in the other article. Perhaps someone ought to point it out. If the desired material is scattered in the source article, might as well just go ahead and transfer the first major portion and wait a day or two for reactions. It can be reverted if discussion makes us think it foolish. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the sections in question were moved some time ago, so, removing the merge templates.
Resolved
Klbrain (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prehistoric technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neanderthal?? vs cromagnon picture

[edit]

the german text (belonging to the picture) seems to say that it is probably NOT a neanderthal depicted in this sculpture but instead a cromagnon (a somewhat later evolutional version of early humans).

"Skulptur im Neanderthal-Museum. Stellt vermutlich NICHT einen Neanderthaler dar (wie vom Dateinamen suggeriert), sondern einen Cro-Magnon (Teil der Ausstellung „Weltenwanderer“: 40.000 bis 10.000 Jahre vor heute); sollte überprüft werden, bevor das Bild verwendet wird."

please have an editor skilled with picture titles formatting to see to this one. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prehistoric_technology&oldid=1212964362"