Talk:Timeline of historic inventions/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gutenberg did invent the printing press.

Yes the Chinese did have block printing before Europe. Yes they did have movable type before Europe. But it was Gutenberg who invented the first metal movable type printing press.

The Chinese would take little bake clay stamps, glue them to wood blocks, and then press it onto the paper. The problem was that it was hard to remove the stamps after you glued them, plus the Chinese had over 80,000 characters in their writing system, which made movable type almost useless to them.

Gutenberg was the first to create a mechanical printing press with metal movable type. Add this invention with an alphabet of only 26 letters and you got yourself the printing revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chucktron (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Needham

Yea Joseph Needham isn't a source of information, considering that 99% of college professors considering him to be extreme. If you read his work and look at his sources, he takes things out of context and over exaggerates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chucktron (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dating of inventions is less important than diffusion of technology

There is a variable time lag between invention and diffusion. Sometimes inventions spread rapidly (cotton gin), sometimes it took centuries (paper making, cast iron).Phmoreno (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your imminent Diffusion of Technology Timeline, since its sooo IMPORTANT. Mdw0 (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

BCE and CE vs. BC and AD

BCE and CE vs. BC and AD This needs to be changed ASAP.

Your point?142.22.115.59 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sysytemic bias

The systemic bias banner is an unfair accusation since this article is obviously in the middle of a rebulding phase. If Eurocentrism still exists after rebuilding then it shoiuld go back, but not until then. Mdw0 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

THis is probably one of the worst articles I have read on wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.162.38 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Knot

Humans use a large number of knots to tie ropes and strings to eachother, and to other things. This is more than any other species (such as the weaverbird which ties its nest together. Where should knot goes on the list? Tabletop (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Once you have sailboats you surely must have certain knots.

Once you have saddles, etc. on horses, you surely must have certain other knots. Tabletop (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Splice

One might also add the invention of splices to the invention of knots. Tabletop (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Splices are much more complicated. You can tie a knot in any sort of fibre, including animal sinew. Splicing can only be done to braided, twisted or rope-laid cordage, which wasn't invented until spinning, a long time after knots. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of inventions

The issue of notability is coming up again. The history of this article has waxed and waned according to different opinions of what constitutes a 'historic' invention, and it has never been resolved. One thing is for certain, references are never going to say that something is historic, they will say when something was invented, and by who, but they dont compare inventions to each other in terms of historical notability for the purposes of this article. In removing an item because of lack of referencing regarding historical significance, be aware that virtually every other line in this article risks deletion for that same reason. Mdw0 (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that the notability of each invention is difficult to determine. One of the problems with the list, is that any comprehensive list will be too large.--Ninthabout (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so we dont want a comprehensive list. We want an exclusive list. Which means that any addition should be assisted by a valid justification accompanying it on the talk page, and referencing mentioning its importance. This is much easier than finding a reference that specifically addresses historic notability. Mdw0 (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Photography

Wow, the invention of the friction match is mentioned but photography is nowhere to be found? (i.e. the daguerreotype) This article needs some serious, serious work. Photography is clearly one of the most valuable and historically significant inventions in all of human history. It's right up there with the airplane and the automobile, if not more important. Miker00lz (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Telegraph

No mention of the telegraph that led to wireless telegraph, radio, and telephone. mawriz (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

radar and nuke

both invented during ww2 are missing. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridicolous Im afraid the page about the "Timeline of historic inventions" is completely non-scientific: a part from listing inventions with little or no impact on the history of mankind, such as games instead of great discoveries, i also have to say that i think it completely overestimates the importance of china and chinese civilization, very often with ludicrous and unimportant inventions, im afraid just to suggest that chinese "did something"...this is what i think by first glance... One thing is sure...in the timeline of great inventions of mankind you put the "invention" of a chinese card GAME in the 9 century, and you DONT PUT little things like NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR ENERGY AND RADAR, and stuff like that? something is seriously wrong, i think the page is so ridicolous it should be deleted...thanks for the attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.92.254 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Many concerns about this list

I see people complaining left and right about this list. Its scope can either be better defined, or we probably should delete it. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Define it, then. Mdw0 (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Return it to the way it was circa 2010. It way much more informative then, even if it didn't meet your standards. Stop letting the perfect get in the way of the good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.102.91 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Knots

There are many different knots which have different properties:

• knots that are tight and are difficult to undo
• knots that are loose and can be undone
• knots to tie ropes of the same size
• knots to tie ropes of different sizes
• knots that can be tied one-handed, such as in Falconry.
• knots for securing the end of ropes, so that they cannot unravel.
• splices that join two ropes "smoothly" so that they can pass through say pulleys.

Since ropes and string are perishable, evidence of early knots may be difficult to find and date. Tabletop (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Article not remotely B class

Off the top of my head, the article doesn't even cover:

-radio -jet engines -electric motors -microprocessors

These are not what you could call tiny omissions, and if I can come up with 4 such major omissions in under 5 minutes, the article clearly is not in any way suitable for even a casual reference source; and this would likely continue to be so even if they were added, I did not need to try hard to find these.

I have therefore downgraded it to C-Class, and there's an argument that it should be start class; it clearly is not B-class.GliderMaven (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the class downgrade. I just noticed that the criticism of the content came without examples, which we now have - something to work on. Mdw0 (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Ship" ; Missing from list

Didnt see: Ship (vehicle) anywhere in list, nor sailing ship for that matter. Was surprised by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.45.93 (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agriculture missing

Agriculture is among the ten most important inventions such as fire and written language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.154.46 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Burial invention way to late

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_prehistoric_technology - 500ka here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.219.136.247 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Use of BC/BCE era (again)

For the past few months, the use of BC/BCE AD/CE in this article has gone back and forth, mostly changed by IPs, but also by some experienced editors invoking WP:ERAS but only to revert the last change. But this article started with BC/AD, and was still using that back in August of this year. It's now back to that again, and per WP:ERAS, must stay that way, unless someone can make a case that it must change based on the article's subject. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I tend to hang out at the beginning of the article, and so often run into issues with the transition between BC and ka (thousands of years ago). E.g., I'm working on an edit right now which among other things fixes the date of invention of kilns - someone looked at the reference saying it was 6000 BC and they entered it as 6000 ka. :-P

TL;DR Also remember to add/subtract 2000 years when switching between BC and thousands of years ago. John_Abbe (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple adds/edits explained

Whoof - somehow I let myself get drawn into a big edit of the early stuff. Added Acheulian stone tools, tally sticks, and bullroarer. Also a bunch more references, and some date changes they support. A few other notable edits:

• I renamed the "Prehistoric" section to "Earliest inventions" and splitting that section into Paleolithic and Neolithic at 10,000 years ago, somewhat arbitrary but I thought the list was getting long and of course permanent settlements and agriculture are generally thought to be a pretty big transition point.

• After extensive reading, to get more in line with more academic language I decided to shift labels from "city" to "proto-city" for the earliest large permanent settlements, since all of the usual candidates lack many of the features (e.g. common buildings, evidence of division of labor) typically associated with cities.

• Writing - I moved writing from 5300 BC to 3000 BC (cuneiform). The pages offered in support of 5300 (Dispilio Tablet and Tărtăria tablets) describe the markings on the tablets as as protowriting, which could have its own entry but I leave that up to others to research and pick a date and reference for.

• Mudbricks - I removed mudbricks (forget mud walls, those are clearly older): ("* 10 - 7 ka: Mud walls and mudbricks between Syria and Pakistan (see Mureybet and Mehrgarh)"). Nothing at the two pages linked supports the claim as far as I can tell. On brick I saw: http://wikis.ifporient.org/archeologie/index.php/Tell_Aswad ([English translation]) but from the translation at least it only seems to claim bricks as a local invention. By chance I saw that Wall of Jericho describes the earliest wall at Jericho as being made of brick and says it has been dated to 8000 BC (10,000 ka) but I couldn't check [the reference] (it's supposed to be on p 6), and there's no claim that's the first use of brick anyway so I didn't want to go with that. I didn't find anything good after a little time looking online, so for now at least I give up. Fired bricks would be nice to add as well. John_Abbe (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Dates/Locations/Sources wanted

Do we have a place to list inventions for which we want to find good dates/locations/sources? Entries I'd like to see for the Paloelithic:

• Spear-thrower
• Grinding stones - e.g. Quern-stone/handstone, Mortar and pestle. (Is there a better term for earlier ones?) Copied this from mortar and pestle: "Pestle used as a tool in southern Italy to grind oats." Reference: [1] Multistep food plant processing at Grotta Paglicci (Southern Italy) around 32,600 cal B.P.
• Walls
• Plaster
• Mudbricks

John_Abbe (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Light Bulb

The invention of the light bulb is strangely absent from this article. I would add it, but I'm not exactly sure who to give credit to. Does anyone have any ideas? Ace45954 (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be wrong to give credit, because that is (except economically) both largely uninteresting (to a history of human technical progress), and also hotly contended. There are two distinct inventions for the incandescent light bulb: the concept of ohmic heating of an enclosed filament, secondly a successful choice of filament and enclosure that gave a useful lamp life. Both of these were each invented by several people, at almost the same time. Firstly without success, secondly with success. If you want to add names for real concrete inventions, Swan did it first with carbon filaments and had commercially installed lights at Cragside before Edison had even started working on the problem. Edison then went on to develop usable metallic filaments, which later became the dominant system in use (although their joint Ediswan company was using Swan carbon filaments). Unlike some of Edisons "inventions" / "thefts" / "bandwagon jumping" (choose whichever you like according to your politics in the ongoing Edison wars), the chronology is at least clear for this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Medicine is way older than 1750BCE

There was medicine in Sumer and Ancient Egypt, along with ancient tablets with recipes for remedies and general procedures (such as throwing beer and warm water over injuries). This article is wrong when it says: "1750 BC: Medicine in Iraq." It quoted a blog on Blogspot, for Christ's sake! 187.64.234.98 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the entry Ace45954 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Lets maintain the quality

Some necessary deletions, fairly standard for this article, of things that are not inventions and not historic. There is a strong bias of recentism. I'd like to see anyone try to make a claim that the iPhone or iPad are even inventions, when they are at best innovative designs or miniaturization of previous products. The mp3 is not historic either. It is a data format like thousands of others.<<Mdw0 (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)>>

Agree. To keep this list manageable these should be flat out "inventions" (didn't exist before and is a notable invention). Combining a truck with a gas chamber is not a notable invention. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bone to Copper Needle isn't Invention

We have evidence of bone needles going back 60ka, and whole bone needles made by Denisovans 50ka. I don't think copper needles (as opposed to bone needles) in Egypt is enough of an invention to get its own entry. If I saw that entry, I would assume that it meant that the earliest NEEDLES were Egyptian, not just the earliest needles that happened to be made out of copper. If we must keep it, perhaps add a clarification like "(earlier bone needles date back to 61 ka)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8008:9100:6DD1:DD84:3B47:556E (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor inconsistency?

timeline discrepancy of hearths Hearths have been found in the ancient Kashmiri Posthole dwellings, radiocarbon dating tells us that they have been there since before 2920 BCE.(Upinder Singh, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearth#Archaeological_features — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan81 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Li-Ion Battery

Regarding the historical importance of the lithium-ion battery, its creation was revolutionary, with performance far outstripping that of the Nickel–metal hydride battery and Nickel–cadmium battery which preceded it. Removing the Li-ion battery on the grounds of it being "just another battery" is akin declaring Watt's steam engine as nothing more than evolutionary improvement over earlier steam engines. Given the ubiquity of Li-ion batteries in contemporary society and the fact that without it modern smartphones and other electronic devices could not exist as we know them, I can't see how it fails the criteria of a historically important invention. I would go so far as to claim that's its the only invention listed from the 1980s that actually deserves to be listed as historically significant. AFAIK, cell phones existed before the DynaTAC 8000X and the CD-ROM is more of a successful commercial brand than an invention. Alphacolony (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion is not that it isn't important, or very commonly used, just that its not an invention. Its not the first battery, its not the first time anyone has tried to use different metals to produce a better battery, and it won't be the last. A better mousetrap is still an innovation, not an invention. You haven't used a very good example to back your case, as there are reams of arguments as to whether Watt's engine is actually an invention or not. There are plenty of people who say Watt's engine was based on earlier, more seminal machines, just like the lithium battery. That debate is a semantic argument for the ages. And you can't use other weak, borderline examples in the list as a reason for including your similarly weak, borderline item. If anything you've made a case that all three should be deleted, not that the new improved battery should be included. It's pretty simple - to be in the list an item must be both historic and an invention, not just historic. Your reasoning appears to be that since you're struggling to understand what an invention is, that is somehow a reason to have a non-invention included. Rather than mere opinion, how about you find a single reference that refers to the lithium battery as an invention. If you can manage that, I'll acquiesce. By the way, thank you for making the effort to make a case for inclusion. That is quite rare. Mdw0 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Most sources I could find refer to the Li-ion battery as an invention and none make the case that the Li-ion battery is not an invention:

https://news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/goodenough-introduces-new-battery-technology

https://bgr.com/2017/03/06/new-battery-technology-john-goodenough-lithium/

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37666626

https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/05/goodenough-solid-battery-technology/

Sorry none of these are from scientific publications, but they aren't really interested in categorizing a breakthrough as either an invention or mere improvement.

Also, I must admit that I don't quite understand the reasoning or rationale behind choosing such a narrow definition for what constitutes an invention. From what I gather, you argue that for a technology to be worthy of this list, it must not only be historic and a represent a significant advancement, but also be wholly (or at least almost wholly) original. This definition is quite stifling and operating strictly under it, almost nothing counts as an invention. I question the purpose of this rule. How does the quality of the timeline improve by removing everything deemed not entirely unique?

Additionally, I question the correctness of this definition of invention. The Gutenberg printing press, for example, is perhaps one of the most celebrated and widely-known inventions throughout history. Any list of historic inventions would be incomplete without it. Yet, operating under your rules, the printing press does not constitute an invention, merely an improvement over existing movable types. Doing a quick scan through the article, the pendulum clock, Gramme machine, wind turbine, diesel engine, and Bessemer process are all examples of inventions which would likely not qualify as inventions under your rules. You refer to such cases as borderline examples, but for borderline examples, they are very common. I feel the article would, if anything, significantly degrade in both quality and usefulness if your criteria of what qualifies for entry on this list were to be implemented systemically.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you. Also, if this article is indeed going to use such strict rules about what constitutes an invention (I don't think it should), perhaps they ought to be formalized and listed at the top of the article. Alphacolony (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct in your interpretation. The process of working out an improved item is much easier than something original. Since the diesel engine involves an significant change to the design and process of the actual engine in order to get it to use diesel, it has a better claim than the others. The Gutenburg printing press, I would say is significantly different from woodblock movable type from China because it involves a new machine and a new process, even if the end product is similar. Gutenberg could show it to the Chinese of his day and they would see it as something new. However, not all the items in this list can claim that level of difference. Take them out and have another look at the article. Its shorter, cleaner and clearer. It suffers less from recentism and other systemic biases.

Of course most technological breakthroughs are based on previous discoveries, so answering the question - Is this an invention? is not strictly black and white. Its grey. Is a nickel cadmium battery an separate invention from the original battery? Is a nickel cadmium battery with a longer life an invention, or are the many changes and improvements to the lithium battery independent inventions? Of course they aren't. Otherwise everything is an invention. You have to ask yourself, where do you draw the line? Unfortunately this can involve an exercise of mere opinion which is frowned upon by Wikipedia for good reason. In a list like this one, it is better to use a strict definition and insist on good references. And also to provoke a little debate so that editors can back up a borderline entry with reasoned argument to ensure it stays on the correct side of the border.Mdw0 (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of historic inventions. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511200049/http://www.freundeskreis-roemerkanal.de/Text/BAUTECHNIK%20IM%20ANTIKEN%20UND.pdf to http://www.freundeskreis-roemerkanal.de/Text/BAUTECHNIK%20IM%20ANTIKEN%20UND.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1988_Oct/ai_6955868
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203175410/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310235015/http://www.wan-press.org/article6476.html to http://www.wan-press.org/article6476.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104031640/http://www.bicycleassociation.org.uk/page6/files/3670931ce5bd420a443f9e5ff33bbbfd-2.html to http://www.bicycleassociation.org.uk/page6/files/3670931ce5bd420a443f9e5ff33bbbfd-2.html

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) 07:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of historic inventions. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310192514/http://www.mainz.de/gutenberg/g2000.htm to http://www.mainz.de/gutenberg/g2000.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304070057/http://bulletin.is.gliwice.pl/PDF/2014/03/02_Turyk_Grobosz_Beginnings_of_submerged_arc_welding.pdf to http://bulletin.is.gliwice.pl/PDF/2014/03/02_Turyk_Grobosz_Beginnings_of_submerged_arc_welding.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204045616/http://home.arcor.de/carsten.popp/DE_00037435_A.pdf to http://home.arcor.de/carsten.popp/DE_00037435_A.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506003539/http://openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/firstemailframe.html to http://openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/firstemailframe.html

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) 05:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Why no 21st century?

Why is the 21st century section not included in this article?

For anything to be considered historic, a certain amount of perspective is required, including time. Mdw0 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Invention notability

I'm not really sure what the notability criterion for including something on the list is. Are "phallus" and "cremation" really such important inventions worth noting? What about "lacquer" and "tattooes"?

It's also not clear if inventions that were regarded as toys, based on the same principle, should be included separately -- like Heron of Alexandria's various different automatons.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sara-Brae toilets?

Undid this edit because whether or not this is a "toilet" is debatable per the sources and therefor incompatible with the WP:SALLEAD for this article per: "Where there is ambiguity, the date of the first known working version of the invention is used here." Communal drains, and apartments with en-suite, drain access, cells is also a very tortured WP:EGG. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Scara Brae offers the earliest KNOWN / DATED / PEER REVIEWED / PUBLISHED examples of INDOOR holes over COMMUNAL drains, in DEDICATED DOMESTIC ROOFED ROOMS, which the cited works attest. While The Minoans are the first to leave evidence of dedicated / specific toilet technologies. The Babylonians are the earliest civilisation KNOWN to have develop Drains, e.g. Temple of Bel at Nippur. While the REVERTED to "Indus Valley Civilization" example, of open air, holes in the ground, over communal drains, are not by a millennia the first examples of either communal drainage, are not indoor, and like Skara Brae offers no evidence of function, for anything other than being domestic holeS in the ground, over communal drains, to remove waste water.

Similarly the reverted to "7500 BC: Mudbricks in the Indus Valley site of Mehrgarh.[73][74]", are millennia younger than those of Jericho.

A.j.roberts (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You're correct re: mudbricks, I have reinstated your edit on this.

I'm unsure regarding Skara Brae. I'll come back to you when I've read your sources more thoroughly. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

...

OK, there doesn't seem to be much academic criticism against the idea that the cubicles of Skara Brae were toilets. I would agree with adding it to the article.

The main concern for me is the dating -- while Skara Brae itself was occupied from 3100 BC to 2500 BC, this does not mean the toilets were constructed in 3100 BC, or before those at the Indus Valley. It's the same issue that the Lothal dock has -- unless you know of a precise dating of the drain itself, I would suggest mentioning both possibilities and acknowledging the uncertainty present. Thoughts?

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding Skara Brae to the end of the Indus Valley entry and acknowledging the uncertainty is a good way to go (and required per WP:YESPOV). Despite the claim of "KNOWN / DATED / PEER REVIEWED / PUBLISHED examples there isn't much reliable sourcing. "Provisional Report on the Excavations at Skara Brae, and on Finds from the 1927 and 1928 Campaigns. With a Report on Bones" and "Provisional Report on the Excavations at Skara Brae, and on Finds from the 1927 and 1928 Campaigns. With a Report on Bones" are primary sources, too old, and not about the history of toilets (nor do they make that claim). That leaves us with a Time citation ("unclear who first invented the toilet"), and Ancient History Encyclopedia, which doesn't cite its claim (other than a few tourist websites and one of the Provisional Report primarys from above in its bibliography). This claim does not appear at Toilet#History so we should probably WP:WTAF before adding a claim here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested phrasing:

By 2600 BC: Toilets in either the Indus Valley or Skara Brae. appear by at least by 2600 BC in the Indus Valley sites of Mohenjo-Daro (Pakistan) and Lothal (India). Excavations at the neolithic site of Skara Brae (inhabited 3100 BC - 2600 BC) in Scotland suggest a possible European use of toilets around the same time period, although uncertainties in dating prevents a definitive claim on the earliest invention.

By the way, not really important to the article, but @User:A.j.roberts: note that your claim re: outdoor vs. indoor toilets is incorrect. While the toilets at Mohenjo-Daro were outdoor, the ones at Lothal were indoor. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as Lothal was occupied from c. 2450-1900 BCE, after the 3180-2500 BCE occupancy of Skara Brae, and similarly the evidence point to squat Latrines, not toilets at all ancient sites, hence the wording in the entry.

A.j.roberts (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The original provisional report, os Skara Brae, offers plans of the sites, and detail what was found in the drains, and like the initial full report, published in a peer reviewed journal, and is now in the Public Domain, so perfectly valid. That later works / papers reference these, while offering radiocarbon dates for the site, and drain content, along with analysis, say: http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2953/1/1993richardsphd.pdf , though most are behind a paywalls, justifying the inclusion of the finding of the original excavations.

The cited works state the Skara Brae site is 700 years older, than Lothal, was abandoned for over a century before construction of Lothal commenced, and still has roofed squat Latrines (Latrine, a hole over a pit or drain, and the most primitive form of toilet), is dated, and has UNESCO World Heritage status.

If you want to keep the Lothal entry, like the Lothal dice, you really need to qualify / differentiate the invention, as say the dice, with a prefixing the entry with terracotta, to justify a significantly later variant of the technology.

A.j.roberts (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Entry reinstated. Reverting an edit as it contains matter not known to an editor, so arbitrarily deleting for all, till they have time to read the cited sources, and / or up on the subject, violates the spirit of Wikipedia, and a few policies. As is say erroneously quoting WP:SALLEAD as the reason for removing the entry, in the first place. Similarly using {{Weasel}}, when unable to find a reason justifying the removal, say "there doesn't seem to be much academic criticism against the idea that the cubicles of Skara Brae were toilets", is annoying.

As to dating, and ignoring their UNESCO listings, along with the analysis of the drains content, that you'll find a few published paper on the grains and parasites, drains built under a series of buildings, and opening in specific rooms / cells in the buildings are likely to pre / post date the construction of a complex. Similarly there are dates for the port of Lothal, which the various sources cite was occupied from c.2450-1900 BCE, which assuming the docks were built at the start of the occupation, rather than a couple of weeks before abandonment, as the cited sources do, still places their construction over a couple years after the death of Khufu, who had the docks at Wadi al-Jarf build, and his name stuck on them.

A.j.roberts (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, your edits were reverted because you were pushing past ignoring the discussion on the talk page and being disorganized. My "there is no criticism against" comment was a statement in favour of mentioning Skara Brae.

Re:Lothal -- this is just false. The archaeolgical evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the settlement going back to 3700 BC. You'll have to provide sources for the claim that the docks were built "a couple of weeks before abandonment". Chan-Paton factor (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your 3700 BC. date, as the cited sources, on the page, the UNESCO, and ASI Monuments listings all suggest a date no earlier than 2400 BCE. (notice the hyperlinked citations).

A.j.roberts (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2450 BC date is for the beginning of the Mature Harappan culture at Lothal, not the settlement itself: as your archaeoastronomy source mentions, Lothal was originally a pre-Harappan chalcolithic site. I'll have to dig up a better source for the 3700 BC date, although e.g. a press comment by an archaeologist is mentioned as a source in the Lothal article. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The source should explicitly offer a peer reviewed date for the DOCKS, as they are the invention you're proposing predates those of Egypt. A.j.roberts (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indus Valley

This is mostly Re:User:A.j.roberts's recent edits.

• There is no evidence that the Egyptian dock is older than the one at Lothal. Lothal was first inhabited around 3700 BC, and while the dock may have been constructed later, you'll need evidence that it was if you want to remove the mention of Lothal completely. Unless you have a precise date for the Lothal dock, I will change the entry to reflect the uncertainty.
• I don't like the idea of indenting "public bath" and "sanitation systems" under "Planned city" -- these are unrelated civil engineering works, and "planned city" at least in this context typically refers to the city layout and zoning, not to urban amenities.
• Please do not remove the entry on toilets until a consensus is reached on the talk page.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The Docks, of Pharaoh Khufu, at Wadi al-Jarf, were constructed by 2566 BCE, and predate the earliest cited date offered, 2400 BCE, for Lothal.

I'll reinstate the REVERTED toilet entry, per Wikipedia:DONTREVERT, and per User:Chan-Paton factor post above, till Wikipedia:Consensus is reached, and reliable sources WP:RS, that satisfy Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP are found, and clearly assert the current Indus Valley examples predate the deleted entries.

Similarly the other dates for the Indus valley finds require individual / explicit citations, that meets WP:RS, for their own invention, not just a common / generic date attributed to the start of the Civilisation.

A.j.roberts (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop the edit warring, please. It's unconstructive, and it isn't helping this discussion. My "Please do not remove the entry on toilets until a consensus is reached on the talk page" comment was addressed to your earlier removal of the IVC toilets entry, not to Fountains of Bryn Mawr. In any case, I'm not an administrator, and you shouldn't cite my comments in edit summaries as if they were Wikipedia policy.

Re: dice -- if you know of any earlier dice, feel free to mention it here and we can see if they should replace the IVC entry. Dice being of terracotta is not itself a notable invention, I agree (something similar applies to your addition of "copper pipes" and "polished concrete").

Re: Indus Valley dates -- I'm aware that there is uncertainty regarding the dates of the specific inventions. Which is precisely why this uncertainty needs to be mentioned. I'm not arguing that the Egyptian dock or the Skara Brae toilets should not be mentioned, or that we claim the Lothal dock was built in 3700 BC. Nobody is making that statement. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

per your earlier post, and the Wikipedia:DONTREVERT policy, please do not remove cited text unless you have a valid reason to do so, and Wikipedia:Consensus is reached A.j.roberts (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not what WP:DONTREVERT is. Your edit makes the article objectively worse, because you're making the editing process disorganized. What's so hard in waiting for consensus here? Chan-Paton factor (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Per the WP:DONTREVERT, an edit should stand, unless it violates a policy, or Wikipedia:Consensus is reached it should be reverted. If you can find a series of WP:RS that prove the Indus Valley entries are earlier that the Egyptian, Iranian, Scottish, ... discoveries I’ll happily consent, but till the I will revert any attempt to the delete well cited entries that predate the Indus examples. A.j.roberts (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The UNESCO entry for Lothal describes it as a: tidal dock-yard, or dockyard, not docks, see: https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5918/. A.j.roberts (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley, so what’s your Contribution to this discussion? A.j.roberts (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@A.j.roberts: It's been explained to you several times that uncertainty in dating should be handled by describing all significant possibilities and outlining the cause of uncertainty, if possible. This seems to be the only point of contention here at this point, and applies both to the Lothal dock and the Skara Brae toilets -- precise dates are not known for either. Note also that the main purpose of this article is as a timeline of inventions: the location and ethnolinguistic details of the invention are provided for context. It therefore becomes crucial to describe all possible origins, and insisting on the removal of one because you find the uncertainty inconvenient is not constructive.

Also: you need to stop incorrectly citing WP:DONTREVERT and "[my] earlier comment" (neither of which are Wikipedia policies) as justification for edit warring. When your changes are part of an ongoing dispute on the Talk page, it's just obvious that your edits will be reverted, because you are ignoring the objections to your edits, which is considered disruptive editing (which, you may observe, comes under WP:DOREVERT. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ball Screw

Hi, I can not find any information about Rudolph G. Boehm, inventor of the Ball Screw. The article Ball Screw mentions H.M. Stevenson and D. Glenn as inventors. Could someone please clarify this for me? 86.89.23.204 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Better to post this at Ball screw so you can improve that article. H.M. Stevenson and D. Glenn have sources[2] and claims it was an 18th century invention[3]. I see some sources for Boehm[4] but they seem to be newer books and the claim may have been copied out of Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Shoes

I'm unclear on your edit to Timeline of historic inventions. What does FORK mean in this context, and why make the time more recent? The "Weaving" entry at 37 ka shows a better treatment, since the list is meant to give the earliest instance of an invention, not the earliest artifact. Abductive (reasoning) 22:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The entry is a WP:POVFORK with the article Shoe, which has an extensive history section. The source is also a primary source (paper) and actually does not make the claim (at least in its abstract) that this is the earliest instance of shoes. This content needs to be stably added to its linked article with secondary sources to directly support the claim being made. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggested phrasing

I'm using this section to propose specific phrasing for each entry under contention here. Please add comments and sources. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Toilets/latrines

• By 2600 BC: Toilets in either the Indus Valley or Skara Brae. Flushable toilets connected to drainage systems appear by at least by 2600 BC in the Indus Valley sites of Mohenjo-Daro (Pakistan) and Lothal (India). Excavations at the neolithic site of Skara Brae (inhabited 3100 BC - 2500 BC) in Scotland suggest a possible European use of toilets around the same time period, although uncertainties in dating prevent a definitive claim on the earliest invention.

The 3180 BC date claimed by A.j.roberts applies to the start of the occupation itself, not of the toilets.

Technically the Radio Carbon dates, published, for the start of occupancy are: 3215 BCE +/-115 Years, though as mentioned earlier, largely irrelevant, as the abandonment date for Skara Brae, is before Lothal was constructed / occupied c2400-2350 BCE. So it’s drains, and latrines will predate those of Lothal. Similarly the copper drainage pipes found beneath the pyramid, and temple complex, are very unlikely to have been retrofitted, and are contemporary with the start of occupation at Lothal. A.j.roberts (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that Mohenjo-Daro was clearly occupied 2600 BC, which is not after the abandonment of Skara Brae. The meaning of the 2400 BC date for Lothal has been explained to you (please discuss this under "docks/dockyard" if you have further questions). Chan-Paton factor (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Similarly only contain Latrines (holes over a drain) have been excavated at the sites, not toilets. A.j.roberts (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

What's your definition of a toilet? These terms are generally used interchangeably. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A construction specifically designed for urination, and dedication, essentially something more than a hole over drain / pit. A.j.roberts (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the definition used e.g. on the page Toilet. All squatting toilets are just "holes over drains". Chan-Paton factor (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In which case the Mesopotamian city of Uruk has brick built, clay pipe connected squat toilets dating to no later than 3200 BCE, that their are multiple WP:RS for. A.j.roberts (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Docks/Dockyard

• By 2556 BC: Docks in either Egypt or the Indus Valley. A harbor structure has been excavated in Wadi al-Jarf, which is believed to have been developed during the reign of the Pharoah Khufu (2589–2566 B.C). A competing claim is from Lothal in India, constructed at some point between 3700-2000 BC; however, more precise dating does not exist.

Similar to the above case, dating only exists for the occupation of Lothal, not the docks themselves.

The UNESCO listing, and other sources date the Lothal Dockyard, not Docks to 2400-2350 BCE A.j.roberts (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Where does your 3700 BCE date come from, as you’ve suggested it here, on my talk page, but none of the offered sources appear to suggest this for the constructed dockyard, and adjacent settlement?

The paper by Mario et al. you cite states: “ The site occupation was divided into two main periods separated by a short break. Period A is dated from about 2450 to 1900 BC, perfectly matching to Phases 3B and 3C of Harappa (Rao 1979: 28-33), while Period B was related to a Late Harappan occupation dated from about 1800 to 1600 BC (Rao 1979: 33-36).”

while the UNESCO entry cited, offers “ The site provides evidence of Harappa culture between 2400 BCE to 1600 BCE.”

A.j.roberts (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mario et al does not claim that Lothal was first occupied 2450 BC, it claims that the Harappan culture at Lothal began 2450 BC. Here's the full context of your quote:

The excavations carried out by Rao disclosed an urban settlement clearly ascribable to the Indus Civilization, which flourished on a local pre-Harappan chalcolithic site (Rao 1979: 24-25). The site occupation was divided into two main periods separated by a short break. Period A is dated from about 2450 to 1900 BC, perfectly matching to Phases 3B and 3C of Harappa (Rao 1979: 28-33), while Period B was related to a Late Harappan occupation dated from about 1800 to 1600 BC (Rao 1979: 33-36).

Basically all the cited sources mentioned (after "from Lothal in India") mention this pre-Harappan occupation. Unfortunately, the only source directly attesting the start of this occupation is a press comment by an ASI archaeologist, which is the source for the 3700 BC date: Again, this means there is uncertainty, and because the point of mentioning locations is to provide context on possible contenders for the first invention, this uncertainty must be acknowledged. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The UNESCO submission, and Mario eg. Al. Paper offer a ~2400-1600 date for Lothal dockyard, which in the context of the Docks entry, appears to satisfy WP:RS for the Indus docks, but if you find a specific, earlier date for the Lothal Dockyard, or any other dock, stick it in, just not a unspecific Civilisation date, which that press comment is, for human occupancy in a region, else you could simply stick 2 million BC and Rift Valley in, for every entry.

A.j.roberts (talk)

"The UNESCO submission, and Mario eg. Al. Paper offer a ~2400-1600 date for Lothal dockyard" No, they don't. Please provide the specific quote that claims this. This is simply not present in the sources.

"...just not a unspecific Civilisation date" This would be a relevant comment if anyone were saying that 3700 BC should be used as the date for the earliest dock and the Egyptian dock should be omitted. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The UNESCO entry for Lothal (https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5918/) States:

“ The archaeological remains of the Harappan port-town of Lothal is located along the Bhogava river, a tributary of Sabarmati, in the Gulf of Khambat. Measuring about 7 HA, Lothals thick (12-21 meter) peripheral walls were designed to withstand the repeated tidal flood, which probably resulted in the bringing the city to an end. The site provides evidence of Harappa culture between 2400 BCE to 1600 BCE. “

it also explicitly references the dockyard:

“ Criterion (v): The excavated site of Lothal is the only port-town of the Indus Valley Civilisation. A metropolis with an upper and a lower town had in on its northern side a basin with vertical wall, inlet and outlet channels which has been identified as a tidal dockyard. “

so with dates for the sites occupancy, and implied construction of the facilities, they won’t have been constructed prior to the site being occupies, or after it was abandoned. Mario pushes occupancy back 50 years, but adds a period of abandonment between 1900-1800 BCE, see above, either way I can’t find a WP:RS that explicitly mentions the site, and the dockyard, with a date for occupancy, or construction before 2450 BCE, hence my edits, to remove un-cited / not easily verifiable dates, which there are numerous suspiciously round ones in this article.

As to the 3700 BCE date, it’s in your suggested wording at the beginning of this section, and reasserted in your reverting last edit to the article:

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_historic_inventions&type=revision&diff=956301434&oldid=956294042

If you have a reliable source for a date prior to 2450 BCE stick it in, with the citation, else please leave the dates in line with the published sources on the site.

19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the UNESCO entry mentions the dock, and also dates the Harappan culture at Lothal to 2400 BC, but that is not the same as dating the dock to 2400 BC.

The wording in the article absolutely does not suggest that the docks were constructed in 3700 BC, but I can see why the phrasing isn't optimal. Would changing the line "from Lothal in India, constructed at some point between 3700-2000 BC" to "from Lothal in India (inhabited between 3700-2000 BC)" address your concern on the wording? Chan-Paton factor (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested rephrasing:

• By 2556 BC: Docks in either Egypt or the Indus Valley. A harbor structure has been excavated in Wadi al-Jarf, which is believed to have been developed during the reign of the Pharoah Khufu (2589–2566 B.C). A competing claim is from Lothal in India (inhabited 3700-2000 BC); however, more precise dating of the Lothal dockyard does not exist.

Should address the concerns regarding the earlier phrasing suggesting a 3700 BC dock.

Per my earlier comments, habitation of the Rift, Nile, Tigris, ... Indus Valleies are irrelevant, with regard to the construction of the first docks. Though if you want to go down that line , per my earlier comment, the Rift Valley wins by 2 million+ years. A.j.roberts (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been explained to you that there is uncertainty around the precise date, and your assertion that the Lothal dock was definitively constructed in 2400 BC is a false, unsourced claim (again, all of your supposed sources mention 2400 BC as the date for the start of the Harappan culture at Lothal, and acknowledge the existence of prior habitation). There is no dock in Rift Valley that has any chance of having been constructed 2 million years ago.

It becomes impossible to assume good faith when you repeatedly ignore these trivial facts, and apparently do not seem to understand what the purpose of providing locational context is. If you have a new objection to what has already been established in this discussion, then please bring it up here: do not make edits that clearly go against the consensus here.

Chan-Paton factor (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No, User:Chan-Paton factor, my assertion is the Lothal dockyard was constructed AFTER 2450 BCE, as the WP:RS offer: 2450, 2400, and 2350, for the start of occupation for the Port City of Lothal, and a Port City will have a constructed port fairly close to the beginning of occupancy. I object to your repeated edits that substitute 3700 BCE, without a WP:RS for construction / invention of a man made / fabricated Dock at the city, based on an human occupancy date for the region. Human occupancy and invention of a specific technology are independent, and per my two previous comments the Rift, Nile, Tigris, ... valleys can demonstrate human habitation, before the Indus, which similarly are all irrelevant when discussing the construction of a dock, or any other specific invention.

Similarly the UNESCO World Heritage sites of Skara Brae and Uruk both exhibit earlier examples of constructed latrines (or toilettes in your preferred terminology), have numerous WP:RS detailing their existence, with the latrines/toilets from Mesopotamia similarly constructed out of bricks, but with clay pipe, rather than brick sewers, to those of the Indus Valley, and the Skara Brae and Uruk examples are both dated to ~3200 BCE date, with WP:RS, which predate the 2600-2400 BCE dates for your preferred Indus Valley examples by half a millennia.

Similarly the Dice page lists WP:RS Egyptian, Iranian (Shahr-e Sukhteh), North Atlantic (Scara Brae) examples that predate the till 2 days back, assertion of Indus Valley invention, that was similarLy immediately reverted to restore the Indus Valley date, as we’re my edits that asserted mud bricks and mortar were known in Jericho, a couple of millennia before the Indus Valley dates on this page, ditto for pens, despite the WP:RS.

There may appear to be be some edits being made, that are not in good faith, remove encyclopaedic text, with WP:RS, for suspiciously round, and un-cited dates, and add gushing, golden, exaltations to one former Civilisation, apparently in contravention of WP:NOV, but I don’t believe they are my attempts to align the entries here, with the details, with even the respective pages, for the inventions.

A.j.roberts (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless you can find a WP:RS that explicitly offers 3700 for the ’construction’ of a dock, it is as relevant as the date for the first provision of 4G cellular communication in Lothal, in reference to the World’s first dock. Many, many, many regions of the earth were occupied before 3700 BCE, and did not construct the first Dock, as the Egyptians appear to have the papyrus, and monumental inscription trail to demonstrate. A.j.roberts (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Brick and mortar

• 9000 BC: Mudbricks, and clay Mortar in Jericho.

A.j.roberts is correct on this one. The entry on Mehrgarh mortar should be removed. Perhaps something should be added on later (pre-concrete) advancements in mortar technology.

Pipes

• 4000 BC: Plumbing. The earliest pipes were made of clay, and are found at the Temple of Bel at Nippur in Babylonia. Earthen pipes were later used in the Indus Valley c. 2700 BC for a city-scale urban drainage system, and more durable copper drainage pipes were later built at the Pyramid of Sahure at Abusir (Egypt).

Based on the "concrete pipes" entry by A.j.roberts and his mention of the pipes at the Temple of Bel. I added in the Indus Valley stuff because it seems to be the first "large-scale" deployment of the technology, but that isn't really an invention, so it can be removed, I dunno.

Concrete

• 1400-1200 BC: Concrete in Tiryns (Mycenaean Greece). Waterproof concrete was later developed by the Assyrians in 688 BC, and the Romans developed concretes that could set underwater. The Romans later used concrete extensively for construction from 300 BC to 476 AD.

A.j.roberts made an entry for "polished concrete", which I'm not convinced is notable enough for a mention. Nonetheless, (pre-Portland) concrete itself is notable enough to be mentioned. Again, I'm not sure if the Roman "widespread use" should be mentioned. I'm also not sure if the Romans were the first to develop concrete that sets underwater, the wikipedia article for Concrete mentions an earlier Egyptian invention, but is not sourced.

Have you visited a house, building, school, shop, ... without a polished concrete floor ?

A.j.roberts (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not the point. Are there any specific non-trivial technologies associated with polished concrete that make it notable for a Bronze Age invention? If it just involves rubbing a rock on concrete, is it really more notable than previous stone age polishing technologies? Chan-Paton factor (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Dice

• Before 3000 BC: Devices functionally equivalent to dice, in the form of flat two-sided throwsticks, are seen in the Egyptian game of Senet. Later, terracotta dice resembling modern ones were used at the Indus Valley site of Mohenjo-Daro (Pakistan).

I'm not sure if this is notable enough to be worth a mention.

Per the Dice page, there were also cuboid dice discovered at Scara Brae, and occupation at that site is dated, carbon 14 dates are in the paper / journal cited above, around page 355-60 A.j.roberts (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is worth mentioning, good. Just don't make any edits until a phrasing is settled here on the talk page. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Iranian examples are probably worth a mention, as found in the context of a backgammon board, or more generally a board game, and the dates of deposition are specific. A.j.roberts (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

I also suggest going through the relevant pages afterward to ensure consistency:

• Toilet
• Dock (maritime)
• Shipyard
• Lothal
• Wadi al-Jarf
• Skara Brae
• History of water supply and sanitation
• Sanitation of the Indus Valley Civilisation
• Concrete
• Dice

Phrasing sounds good to me. Lists such as this should provide navigation to Wikipedia topic articles and this list should reflect those articles (i.e. this list is not a place for novel theories/POVFORKS). This list pushing expansion/cleanup of those articles is a good idea. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Computer, Smartphone, and Tablet

Someone needs to mention the invention of the first digital, electronic computer by John Atanasoff, as well as the invention of the smartphone and the tablet computer. Stephen Karakashev (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting someone else do the work that you'd like to see is just lazy. Write it, reference it, add it. Be Bold.Mdw0 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits contrary to WP:YESPOV / WP:CONTENTFORK

I reverted this large series of edits because many of them go against WP:YESPOV an WP:CONTENTFORK. Most of these contradict, or fail to reflect, their linked articles. They are coming up as incorrect, opinions, or more complex backgrounds. They can not be direct statements. The CONTENTFORK needs to be rectified before re-adding. Some are wrong or misleading statements, some can be re-added as-is but the shear edit wall makes this a chore to sort out. These should also be notable entries, i.e. have Wikipedia articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Which edits specifically fail to reflect the articles, or the cited sources, as the above statement appears to be your own WP:POV, without a single WP:RS offered in support, unlike the edits. A.j.roberts (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As nothing specific, and no supporting sources, have been offered to back any of the reversions i'll restore the edits, till evidence of a CONTENTFORK is offered. A.j.roberts (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverted additions

Many of the latest additions added to this list have been unverified, simply wrong, contained broke references, are disputed, have broken syntax, are non-WP:LISTCRITERIA "particularly important or significant technological inventions", or are trivia (who made a clock shaped like an elephant). I have removed unverified, redundant, disputed/contradicted by their parent article, and trivial inventions and cleaned up others. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Musical notation in Sumer

Mention of Sumer musical notation deleted. Footnote lead nowhere practically, other related wikipedia pages, namely, Sumer, Music of Mesopotamia and Musical notation, avoid the subject, and no cross-references are found. There is no source confirming that any Sumer findings were actually written music. The only surviving evidence of musical culture known as of today is texts about music, remains of instruments and images of musical events. The misconception seems to be common, you read such stories every now and then, but evidence is still lacking, and this is wikipedia. Anapazapa (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

VR/XR Headsets

Someone added Apple Vision Pro to the list. I reverted that edit because it was not sourced, the historic significance of the Vision Pro has not yet been established, and Vision Pro was neither "the world’s first mixed reality headset" nor "the first headset controlled by human eyes" Alpyne (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)