Talk:Prehistory of Transylvania

Reader
Strange: just 2 comments in 2017, nothing since 2010. I'll add the phases where I see it. The main criticism was about the length of the article. I believe we should distribute the content of this article into the parts of [|Romanian Archeology] and add a timeline of the cultures (overview) and an overview of the Ages. I miss the description of the hamangia and the Cucuteni cultures. Or does it make sense to concentrate/limit this article to Transylvania ?

Rookie
I was a rookie when I wrote this article. and still I am. I have no ideea about html or how wiki works. I wished to upload on that page pictures, references, books but i don t know how. Anyone who wants to help me with that article can ask me and i will give sources, pictures, books. anything you need. regards Rotea
 * Hi Roteadan. Thank you for the message above.  I  think  that some Wikipedia editors would like to  work  with  you on  this to  bring  it up  to  Wikipedia page standard. Please check in  from  time to  time. When you log  in, you  will see a yellow message at  the top  of the page for you  to  click  to  go  straight  to your own page. --Kudpung (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rotea, we cleaned up your article. When you have a chance, please review. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In particular, the wrong "links" to not existing articles, and only pointing to the same word in the same article, are indeed annoying and have to be cancelled. Completely useless are hints on puzzling "three phases", which are neither described, nor chronologically defined. HJJHolm (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Above all, many thanks for the very good informations, missing in many other wikis! It would, however, be useful, if a native teacher of English could distangle the extremely "interhooked" style, and the many nationalistic assessments (I tried some minor parts).HJJHolm (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit done
I have hopefully made this article more readable. It was a considerable labour. It is either a machine translation, or the work of someone with poor English. Some of my edits may have distorted the intended meaning; there were passages where some decisions were necessary to make it at all intelligible. I also have concerns about COPYVIO because 'this chapter' is mentioned (which I edited out). The article appears repetitive, and long-winded, but I was unwilling to be any more radical in my edits, as I have no expertise in the topic. I agree with the editor above, who said that the article contained interesting material. I believe it can be further improved over time. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Great improvements lately
Thanks User:Codrinb, for all the recent improvements you have made to this article. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you too! I am done for now, maybe you can run a second pass. Regards--Codrin.B (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

End of Eneolithic
The uninformed and uninforming speculations about the Indo-Europeans are self-contradicting.HJJHolm (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Bronze Age
It is at least idiosyncrating to write that "Significantly, the first bronze items (brass alloyed with arsenic, and later tin) now emerged." in the THIRD (her last) phase of the BA.HJJHolm (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriation
Because Noua follows after the Wietenberg, I changed the order accordingly. HJJHolm (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

When does prehistory end,
... when writing emerges in the culture in case, or when that culture starts being described by other, more developed neighbours? From C6 BC onwards we have Herodotus etc., giving ample descriptions of the Geto-Dacians, even if Dacians themselves didn't do much writing of their own. Setting here the end date at the mid-2nd century CE seems a bit late. Arminden (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)