This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prehistoric technology template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I mention in the discussion for Clothing in the ancient world, that article's inclusion in this template betrays a lack of understanding that " history" refers to the period of the human past for which there are written records (and thus the existence of civilization), while " prehistory" refers to the period in which writing had not yet been developed. The Neolithic revolution and the emergence of agriculture and civilization are also generally synonymous with the development of writing (both in the New and Old World), and thus form a traditional boundary between the periods. "Prehistorical" would then be appropriate to describe the technology that appears in Prehistoric technology, such as that used by " Ötzi the Iceman," but it is not correct to apply that term to, e.g., the clothing of ancient Rome or ancient maritime history. These are NOT prehistorical. Blacksun1942 ( talk) 12:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the inclusion of various articles that are concerned with the ancient world and NOT prehistory, I suggest that either a new template should be formed, "Ancient Technology," or those articles dealing specifically and exclusively with ancient technology (i.e. ancient maritime history, clothing in the ancient world, etc) should be removed from this template. Blacksun1942 ( talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting and useful template although I wonder about the logic of various parts of it, especially the architecture section. Why Göbekli Tepe and not other ancient sites; why Stonehenge but not e.g Callanish? Just referring to Scotland alone, there is no mention of Unstan ware, brochs, or any of the Oldest buildings in Scotland yet there are some specific structures mentioned that (to me) are a little obscure. This is a huge topic and without some clear criteria I can see the template getting very bloated. Ben Mac Dui 17:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Need to trim this huge template down a bit... and fix the accessibility problem with all the sections. I will look this over in the next few days. -- Moxy ( talk) 12:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prehistoric technology template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I mention in the discussion for Clothing in the ancient world, that article's inclusion in this template betrays a lack of understanding that " history" refers to the period of the human past for which there are written records (and thus the existence of civilization), while " prehistory" refers to the period in which writing had not yet been developed. The Neolithic revolution and the emergence of agriculture and civilization are also generally synonymous with the development of writing (both in the New and Old World), and thus form a traditional boundary between the periods. "Prehistorical" would then be appropriate to describe the technology that appears in Prehistoric technology, such as that used by " Ötzi the Iceman," but it is not correct to apply that term to, e.g., the clothing of ancient Rome or ancient maritime history. These are NOT prehistorical. Blacksun1942 ( talk) 12:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the inclusion of various articles that are concerned with the ancient world and NOT prehistory, I suggest that either a new template should be formed, "Ancient Technology," or those articles dealing specifically and exclusively with ancient technology (i.e. ancient maritime history, clothing in the ancient world, etc) should be removed from this template. Blacksun1942 ( talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting and useful template although I wonder about the logic of various parts of it, especially the architecture section. Why Göbekli Tepe and not other ancient sites; why Stonehenge but not e.g Callanish? Just referring to Scotland alone, there is no mention of Unstan ware, brochs, or any of the Oldest buildings in Scotland yet there are some specific structures mentioned that (to me) are a little obscure. This is a huge topic and without some clear criteria I can see the template getting very bloated. Ben Mac Dui 17:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Need to trim this huge template down a bit... and fix the accessibility problem with all the sections. I will look this over in the next few days. -- Moxy ( talk) 12:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)