Template talk:Human timeline/Archive 1

Templates (Human/Life/Nature timelines) and MOS:ACCESS
Sorry for the late input but I did not notice this discussion at WP:VPT until the archive bot moved it. The subtle progressive color shifts are useless to those with color-impaired sight. To comply with the MOS may I suggest a 1-pixel border line of a highly contrasting color at each progression point. The border color will need to change at each progression point. Alternatively you could use alternating contrast colors for each time block but I think that would look really tacky. Please see Accessibility dos and don'ts and of course MOS:ACCESS as well. Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 12:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Try using http://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/ to test the results.
 * Thank you for your comments re possible template modifications for better accessibility - presently unclear about your suggested modifications - perhaps presenting test examples of modified templates to the respective template sandboxes (ie, "Human timeline/sandbox"; "Life timeline/sandbox"; "Nature timeline/sandbox") may help - Comments Welcome by other editors of course - to reach "WP:CONSENSUS" - [NOTE: a related alternate possiblity? => maintain present versions for most (95.5%?) of viewers; wikilink to second color-adjusted versions for color-challenged (4.5%?) viewers] - ALSO - should note in this regard that, apparently, there may be ways of correcting for "color-blindness" (also see => "NIH ref") (for starters, please see "Enchroma" - as well as - "Google search") - ALSO - there may be apps, like the "CHROME APP for Color-blind viewers", to help color-impaired viewers better view webpages - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't depend upon users to use the tools we think they should use, and we should just get it within accessibility limits. It's not going to hurt anything to have a subtle line between the color shifts. This will also help with limitation of hardware. I'm not colorblind at all, but in the "Life timeline" box to the right, there is barely any perceptible difference between the backgrounds of the "Multicellular organisms" and "Eukaryotes" segments, viewed on my (non-Retina) Apple monitor, and no visible difference at all on my older Dell laptop screen, but a perceptible one on my phone. In the "Nature timeline" there is insufficient contrast between the background and wording of the "Cosmic expansion" segment. We need to remember that these colors are optional, not essential. We would probably do well to reduce them all to much paler but juxtapositionally distinct colors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - should note that the subtle difference in color between the "Eukaryotes" and "Multicellular organisms" sections in the "Template:Life timeline" was intentional - to present the very close association of the two biologies: after all, only "Eukaryotes" (and not "Prokaryotes") can become "Multicellular organisms" - ALSO - a somewhat subtle merging of colors from one timeline section to another seems more realistic - and suggests that actual transitions are likely a gradual merging from one section type to another, rather than otherwise - nonetheless - and as before - perhaps presenting your own test examples of modified templates in the respective template sandboxes (ie, "Human timeline/sandbox"; "Life timeline/sandbox"; "Nature timeline/sandbox") may help - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be intentional, but it's subtle, if I can only notice it on 1 out of three devices. My to-do list is over-long right now, but if no else does this, ping me in a week, I may have time for some template demos. (It's not a matter of just slapping some colors in; it will need to be run through some colorblindness tests and such; accessibility compliance is real work, that I have a bit of pro experience with it, though it's not my focus.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ - adjusted colors to better view sections in the "Life timeline" template and sections/text in the "Nature timeline" template - hope these adjustments help - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Homo idaltu appears to be in the wrong place
Homo idaltu which links to Homo sapiens idaltu is shown at the top of the timeline above Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens is omitted. The article on H. sapiens idaltu says they pre-date Neanderthals, so clearly something is cock-eyed about the timeline. Can someone with abit of expertise correct this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - the issue may need clarification - seems the "predating..." and related quotes in the original lede of the Homo sapiens idaltu article may not be supported by the cited reference - an earlier reference in the lede may be better - as a result, more complete quotes may be as follows: "[The fossil findings] predate [sic? - see below] classic Neanderthals and lack their derived features ... are morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans ... represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans ... their anatomy and antiquity constitute strong evidence of modern-human emergence in Africa." - the lede of the Homo idaltu article has now been updated - placement of Homo Idaltu in the template, just before the "Modern humans" (or Homo sapiens sapiens, including Homo sapiens - wikilinked to Behavioral modernity) note in the timeline, seems justified since, as before, Homo sapiens idaltu "represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans" - ALSO - seems Neanderthals "separated from the Homo sapiens lineage 600,000 years ago" (see Neanderthal) - the Homo sapiens idaltu fossil findings seem dated to the "post-" (not "pre-"?) time of "160,000" years ago instead [note: afaik - "pre-" *may* apply if "pre-" is understood as before the passing of the last Neanderthal (about 40,000 years ago?)] - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's still a mess. I think we should go with the most reliable source, and not quote the confused/confusing one directly, even if we think it's is good enough for some other material. Having a big "[sic?]" right in the middle of a quote in the lead makes it look like we're just inserting random nonsense into our pages. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - there may be room for improvement - perhaps presenting your own exact suggested text and/or refs may help? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm very WP:BOLD (and even have an anthro degree), but this is outside my area. It's needs to be corrected, not just copyedited, and I don't have the research materials on hand to be certain what the current (2016) scientific consensus is on this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW - Comments Welcome - to help better resolve this issue - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ - Updated "Human timeline" as follows => "[ [Anatomically modern human|Homo sapiens]]" (from "[ [Homo sapiens idaltu|Homo idaltu]]") - AND - "-195,000" (from "-160,000") - per "Anatomically modern human" - the newly updated texts seem better established in the responsible scientific literature at the moment than their related texts in the earlier version - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Humans 300,000 years old?
Recent news => humans evolved 300,000 years ago, much earlier than the 200,000 years ago thought previously? - relevant discussions at the following => "Talk:Human" - AND - "Talk:Homo sapiens" - AND - "Talk:Anatomically modern human" - AND - "Talk:Jebel Irhoud" - AND - "Talk:Timeline of human evolution" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Humans exited Africa 270,000 years ago?
Somewhat related - evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago, much earlier than the 70,000 years ago thought previously - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Praise

 * finding some interesting things about early stages of evolution ¥¥¥™¥¥¥ Malcolm180874 (talk)

Overlapping lines?
In relation to this recent, two other lines also wrap for me, resulting in cooking and clothing to appear on top of each other. Using nbsp fixes that but causes those lines to reach or exceed the template's right border. The font size appears to be 9px. Possibilities would be to use nbsp and 8px, to reduce the width of the yellow column, and/or expand the width of the template. — Paleo Neonate  – 21:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Another possibility may be to remove "earliest" from those instances, which may even allow to reduce the template width... — Paleo Neonate  – 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - regarding lines in the "Template:Human timeline" overlapping in some computer environments - for my part, all seems *entirely* ok with all my available pc environments - including Dell-desktop/Win10, Dell-desktop/WinXP, HP-laptop/WinXP, Acer-laptop/Win7, Toshiba-tablet/Android and using all available browsers (including Chrome/Firefox/MSIE) and at all available screen resolutions - these pc environments may cover "most used these days", I would think - my typical result is similar to the following screen images: "captured earlier" and "captured more recently" - no overlapping lines whatsoever were observed under any of these pc environments - perhaps best atm to wait for more comments from other editors - to better determine if the possible problem needs more attention - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a non-Windows/non-OSX environment, so possibly a fonts or fonts rendering difference (Freetype with Bitstream Vera Sans (+Mono as the fixed font)). The rendering must not be that far off other systems though, as the Gecko engine is ACID compliant and the font vector free-scaling...  When I have more time to dedicate to it, I'll likely experiment with the template in a sandbox and link to it for opinions.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request re homo naledi
You forgot to add the homo naledi to the evolution tree. Adding it wont be difficult. If any one would like to contact me, I'm theunintendedgeek @gmail.com TheUnintendedGeek (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * BRIEF Followup - the purpose of the "Human timeline" is to present notable, and settled, events (as far as is known at the moment) to the average reader - (please see the related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline") - the significance of the somewhat recent findings of "Homo naledi" is yet to be determined afaik atm - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request re odd images
Page has been vandalized, please remove obscene photos. 121.214.61.2 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thank you for your note - now "fixed" - however - affected transcluded pages may need to be refreshed with a "WP:PURGE" - if interested, please see related technical discussion at the following => "Village pump (technical)" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Separation" text
I suppose it is standard terminology, but "Separation from gorillas" and "Separation from chimpanzees" is bothersome. Obviously it means when human ancestors split from those species, but some of our less than scientific friends could think, once again or still, that it means we descended from chimps. Please consider "Chimpanzee separation from common ancestor" or something similar. Thank you. Rocksnstars (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Tom Hoffelder
 * ✅ - Yes - this was considered earlier - perhaps something like "Gorillas separate" and "Chimpanzees separate" (or, perhaps, "LCA-Gorilla separation" and "LCA-Chimpanzee separation") would be better? (template limits text) - Comments/Suggestions Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline axis
As the timeline axis is labeled "millions of years AGO" (emphasis mine), the numerals should be positive, not negative. I suggest either removing the negative signs, or changing the label to "millions of years from the present" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambo102 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Sambo102 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - seems this was somewhat discussed earlier with the "" - see "Template talk:Life timeline" and "Template talk:Life timeline" - perhaps best for now to wait for comments about this from other editors - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - BRIEF Followup - decided to adj the timeline axis label by removing "ago" and more - so that the earlier "millions of years ago" is now "million years" instead - this seems better after all - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! :) Sambo102 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

H. sapiens merge?
Also, I noticed that the part where Neanderthal used to be was merged into Heidelbegensis with Neanderthal as a small side section alongside H. sapiens sapiens. But isn't Heid. considered to be H. erectus usually and Neanderthalers to be a subspecies of H. sapien? So shouldn't Neanderthal be included as H. sapiens, or better yet put all 3 as H. sapiens?137.118.100.215 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - the present view was contributed by "User:Dbachmann" (see "prev") and seems to be the present consensus of editors - however - a further discussion by other editors for "WP:CONSENSUS" may be possible - and perhaps worthy I would think - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Debian OS display?
Some leftside nested text overlap in captioned frames and unreadable. Both on Web browser and Firefox ESR 45.4 both in Debian 8.6 [Note: comment by 148.75.121.81 on 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)]
 * ✅ - Thank you for your comments - all seems *completely* ok re the various timelines with my own browser programs, including the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox and more - using MS Windows and Android OS programs - seems presentations on less popular OS programs (like Debian) could be better? - nonetheless - related comments from other editors welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All looks okay for me as a Debian/Firefox user a couple of years later. NB ESR releases of Firefox can be behind in terms of layout features, so that may be source of the problem. User:GKFXtalk 20:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Vertical text: rotate letters or not?
Re: revert by There are two ways that vertical text can be presented: I prefer the second option since the word still looks roughly the same as usual, just rotated. I believe that the second option is also more common in professional typesetting. However as Drbogdan has queried this and reverted the change, I am posting this message to obtain consensus on the matter. In my original edit the words were stretched out by 0.3em; this probably wasn't helpful to legibility and either none or a more moderate figure of 0.1em looks nicer. User:GKFXtalk 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - as noted in my edit summary, the original (and current) long-standing text/format seems better for the "Human timeline" template - much easier to view and understand - however - In order to reach a "WP:CONSENSUS", Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019
To whom it may concern,

I wish to lengthen the timeline to go back to Proconsol as that I think was arguably the decisive step in Human evolution, when apes diverged from monkeys, also as the timeline stands it seems to suggest that apes didn't appear until about 10 million years ago. I wish also to update it to bring it more in line with your human evolution timeline, for instance getting rid of Nakalipithecus and replacing it with Pierolapithecus, as the latter's discovery along with Ouronopithecus suggests by that point that the human ancestors had shifted from Africa to Europe, where they remained until Sahelanthropus listed as having lived 13 million years ago as opposed to 10. I also wish to add Graecopithecus just bellow Sahelanthropus as it is two hundred thousand years older and a 2017 study referenced in your page on it suggests that it is an ancestor to Humans.

Hope you okay these, if you allow me to make some changes but not others I promise to only make the changes you allowed.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Marin 2607:FEA8:A9DF:FD96:5AB:5986:B7CC:BCA5 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: @Marin - Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - unfortunately, extending the timeline from the present 10 mya scale to your proposed 25 mya scale (to include "Proconsul (mammal)") seems to compress the current template notes/text and, as a result, produces a distorted template of overlapping notes/text - incidently, on your proposed scale of 25 mya, seems "Pierolapithecus" (at 13 mya) need not replace "Nakalipithecus" (at 10 mya) since they both may be sufficiently spaced on the proposed template - also, seems "Sahelanthropus" appears to be noted as 7 mya on both the "Sahelanthropus" article as well as the "Timeline of human evolution" article (the 13 mya or 10 mya you noted does not seem to be supported in these articles) - "Graecopithecus" (at 7.2 mya) seems a worthy addition to the present template but, again, text overlap seems to occur on the present template - at the moment, the present template, as is, seems ok and is not distorted with text overlaps - also, the present template on the present 10 mya scale seems sufficiently useful re the known development of "human evolution" for most I would think - I'm inclined to leave well enough alone at the moment (templates can easily be broken when some modifications are attempted) - however - a newly created, but different, template (possibly as a sandbox test effort), based on your suggestions, may be worth a consideration, if you would like to make such an effort - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments/suggestions - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Modern speech
Having an arrow pointing to "modern speech" on the timeline gives the impression that there is anything approaching a consensus on the date at which it developed. There is of course nothing in the fossil record that would given an indication; indeed, even setting a date for "anatomically modern vocal cords" would be contentious. As such, setting a date for the origin of speech can only be based on conjecture that is highly, highly speculative, and could easily be wrong by something on the order of a million years. I propose removing it. Meesher (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - agreed - worth  considering of course - the date on the "Human timeline" of the "origin of modern speech" is noted at 250,000 ya - which seems to be the middle of the interval of cited (albeit, speculated) dates - one up-side of retaining the note is to have a reasonable link to the "origin of speech" article - for viewers who may be interested in further details - and perhaps the best current studies about the subject - nonetheless - eliminating the note is possible - but let's first wait for other editors to comment - in any case - Thanks for your comments and suggestion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree this should be removed. Firstly what is "modern" speech and how do we distinguish it from any "ancient" speech which might have existed before it, and secondly there some linguists such as Daniel Everett who make a very good case that H. erectus most likely had language. Dating the origin of language is at its core a contentious and highly speculative topic as "speech" isn't something that can show up as easily in the archaeological record as clothes or fire etc, I don't think we should include it in this template. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

✅ - Thank you for your comments - the "modern speech" note that had been indicated at 250,000 ya has now been removed from the "Human timeline" template - if there may be some other suggested way (other than the "modern speech" terminology - which may be a bit contentious at the moment) to better link to the "Origin of speech" section, then such a way may be a worthy consideration for the template I would think - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description in template
Hi,. In this edit you re-added a short description to the template which was removed in an earlier edit by. However, the result of having a short description in this template seems to be that every article that uses this template is having its own short description overriden with this "Hominin events for the last 10 million years" short description. Not sure if there's a way to keep a short description in this template without having it override all the short descriptions with articles that adopt it? --CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - not clear about the concern, but decided to rem-out the short description - hope this helps in some way - please post if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like the short description is showing up properly on the various articles that I checked now. Thanks. Maybe this helps clear it up: the short description is displayed on articles on the mobile app, and I have also enabled it on a desktop browser using Shortdesc helper. Because of the short description field in the template, all files that used the template were showing the template's short description instead of the article's. --CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent - Thanks for your response - and efforts - seems the solution using the "WP:INCLUDE" coding works ok - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - please see "Talk:Human", and related technical discussion at => "Village pump (technical)" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019
Change “Exit” from Africa to “Expansion” beyond Africa 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:BE (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion - the original text "Exit" seems better (than "Expansion") - and better fits the limited space in the template - however - comments from other Editors is Welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

July 8 2020 @DrBogdan, in what way please do you think that "Exit" seems better? It can easily be misunderstood to strongly imply that the people who remained in Africa are NOT human. Whereas "Expansion beyond Africa" correctly implies that our entire species started in Africa, we are ALL originally from there, and it was from Africa that we launched our subsequent exploration and settlement of the rest of the world. The words you use to describe the same series of events thus have profoundly different implications for the people who remained in the human homeland rather than venturing abroad. On this basis may I ask you to please review your decision, and provide further support for what you mean by "better" if you decide not to change the word exit. 2001:1c00:1518:f700:d4f5:cf00:cbd7:a6e5 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - "Exit from Africa" - to => "Expansion beyond Africa" - maybe better after all - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021
On this chart, Sahelanthropus is listed as possibly bipedal. On Sahelanthropus' page, it states that in 2020 a femur was analyzed and it was determined that they were not bipedal and possibly not a human ancestor. This evidence suggests the listing in this table is wrong. 2603:8001:8404:5394:D48:FC57:67DA:1C16 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - yes - *entirely* agree. - rm "possibly bipedal" wording from the template - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Earliest clothing?
The pointer for Earliest clothing is at H. heidelbergensis, yet I can find no reference that would support this. Instead I find articles that outline speculations regarding Neanderthals attempted to turn hides into clothing, but more likely never inventing the tools that behaviorally modern humans used to make tailored garments. Such garments, deserving to be called clothes, allowed modern humans to survive the cold, this being no earlier than 100K years ago, as supported by the genetics of lice. Instead, the lack of true clothing, instead of draped hides, is seen as a contributing factor in Neanderthal extinction.

There is the illustration in Homo_heidelbergensis of a group of well-dressed individuals, which I can only take as a whitewash of the past.



--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reset pointer to 200K YA (An approximation, but the text was very crowded.) Also fixed the linked article section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

✅ - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and efforts - they're *greatly* appreciated - yes, agreed - no problem whatsoever with your template adjustments and all - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * BRIEF Followup => reset "Earliest clothes" to "150Kya" - along with some added code =>  - (for a better template fit; hopefully, the code is not deprecated of course) - may be better than the earlier "200Kya"; or the noted "170Kya" - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC) - ADD => "Earliest clothes" - reset to "100Kya" - maybe better yet? - Drbogdan (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Homo erectus (wait what!)
Fire??? No way. How! Jumpycamel (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and concern - the "Template:Human timeline" currently notes 1.5 Mya as the "Earliest fire use" and is based on the following (see "Homo erectus") => H. erectus is credited as the first human ancestor to have used fire, though the timing of this invention is debated mainly because campfires very rarely and very poorly preserve over long periods of time, let alone thousands or millions of years. The earliest claimed fire sites are in Kenya, FxJj20 at Koobi Fora and GnJi 1/6E in the Chemoigut Formation, as far back as 1.5 Mya,  and in South Africa, Wonderwerk Cave, 1.7 Mya.  - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Template problem?
Template Problem?: Re "Homo habilis" on the template graph - seems "bar9-left" works OK; but "bar9-nudge-right" and "bar9-nudge-down" are BROKEN, and no longer work at all for some reason? - is there a fix for this? - Thanks in advance for your reply - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not broken, it's disabled. By default, the text centers in the box. If you want to override that, you set true, and then bar*-nudge-* will work. I need to document this. — hike395 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for your comments - and clarification - yes - all seems *entirely* ok at the moment - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Broken linking
Links to earliest clothes, earliest cooking, earliest fire use, expansion beyond Africa, earliest bipedal and chimpanzee split don't work. Also, this template should not use per MOS:ACCESS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Thank you for your comments - and noting the broken links in - interesting - not sure what needs fixing at the moment - everything seemed *entirely* ok not too long ago as I recall - may have to do some homework with this - there doesn't seem to be any broken links whatsoever currently in two similar templates:  or  - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - (and others) - "adds/adjs - all links now seem to be working again - rm all instances of < /small> & replaced with { {font|size=80%|- -}} - or related" - hope this is *entirely* ok - or, at least, better than earlier - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your efforts, but the links still aren't working for me. Also, ideally this template should not use or equivalent because as stated in MOS:ACCESS, "Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections." The extra small text can be quite difficult to read especially for those with limited vision capability. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(and others) - Thanks for your comments - yes - agreed re font sizing - but this may take some substantial template overhauling I would think - much like the updating of the  recently - please see the comparison of original and updated versions of the  at => "Template talk:Life timeline" - you (or others) are welcome to try of course - perhaps using the related sandbox (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Human_timeline/sandbox ) - none of the links of the current  are broken for me at the moment - all links are now working *entirely* ok for me (using => WinTel10/Chrome&FirefoxBrowsers/DellXPS8900) - not sure why the  links may not be working for you - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Need Template:Human timeline Help
(and others) - Need Template Help if Possible - Tried to upgrade the "Template:Human timeline" to a somewhat larger (for better font sizes) template at => "Template:Human timeline/sandbox5" - some of the Note links (on the right side margin) seem OK (4 of 10), but several Note links (6 of 10) are NOT OK (no linking?) for some reason (except for these 6 Note links, all other of the 28 links in the template are OK) - I'm stumped with the 6 (NOT OK) Note links at the moment - any help with these particular links would be greatly appreciated - Thanks - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) - The problem seems to be a "display bug" in the since the problem also occurs in the  and  templates as well - according to editors at "Village pump (technical)" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

✅ (and others) - Possible Solution - all links now seem to work OK (using => WinTel10/Chrome&FirefoxBrowsers/DellXPS8900) in "Template:Human timeline/sandbox5" - after removing/commenting-out => " " in the template coding - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The timeline still doesn't work for me under Firefox/Ubuntu. annotations-width shouldn't affect this. I believe this is because of the use of the vertical notes to fill in the age labels (like Pleistocene). When you have long vertical notes, it is likely to confuse the hit finding of the browsers.
 * The right way to do this is with barXX-text and the use of Vertical text. You can see an example of this at Devonian graphical timeline.
 * Note also that note text size is set by the Graphical timeline template to be the minimum acceptable size according to MOS:SMALLFONT. If you're setting it to anything below 90%, it's in violation of the MoS. I can see that you aren't doing this, so that's great!
 * I'll attempt a fix in Human timeline/sandbox. — hike395 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments, detailed corrections and efforts - to be clear on my end at the moment, *all* the links in the Human timeline/sandbox5 version seem to work with both browsers (ie, Chrome and Firefox - as well as - Brave,Edge,Opera) using Wintel10/DellXPS8900 - maybe Ubuntu (and not the browsers) is a possible cause of some of the recent concerns? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also made a change to the underlying Lua (suggested by ) that may have fixed the problem. I'm working in my own sandbox on a simpler version of the timeline, where the human clade is outlined in the bars, and all other species are placed into the notes. — hike395 (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021
I want to replace this link "Control of fire by early humans" instead of "Cooking" in Hominin timeline template. Neghasht (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

note8=Earliest cooking --> note8=Earliest cooking Neghasht (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Thank you for your suggestions - however - the original text seems better - and seems well supported - and currently includes both of your suggestions already as follows:

| note7-at=-1.500 | note7=Earliest fire use (ie, [ [Control of fire by early humans|Earliest fire use]]) | | note8-at=-0.790 | note8=Earliest cooking (ie, [ [Cooking#History|Earliest cooking]])
 * hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Human timeline"
NOTE: Copy of the original post at User talk:Drbogdan:

Hi, you introduced a div-span-flip error with your changes to Template:Human timeline today. All the pages it links to are now appearing in the WP:LINT filter Miscellaneous issues And I'm not seeing what needs to be adjusted to correct this issue. I thought you'd appreciate this message more than me attempting to tinker with it. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your post re the "WP:Lint" issue - at the moment, I have no idea whatsoever how to solve this problem (I'm a "newbie" with much of the template coding) - any help solving this template problem would be *greatly* appreciated - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: Copied from Wikipedia talk:Linter
 * . I had to swap two nested templates. In short, font uses span tags, and Vertical text uses div tags. Div tags don't like to be inside of span tags. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you *very, very* much for your help with this linter error - lesson learned - Thanks again - your help is *greatly* appreciated - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Template updates
Discussion at "Talk:Denisovan" has resulted in some updated template improvements as follows:


 * ✅ 0.114 mya => Last appearance of H. erectus 117–108 kya
 * ✅ 1.7 mya =>,  first fire (which includes cooking)
 * ✅ 2.12 mya => earliest evidence of Homo outside Africa 2.12 mya
 * ✅ 8.5 mya => human/chimp split occurs 10–7 mya
 * Needs specific dates/references - and prioritizing in importance - since template space may be a limiting factor => rudolfensis, naledi, antecessor, floresiensis, luzonensis, longi

Comments and Help Welcome for further updated template improvements - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022
In fact Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis invented clothing before Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the timeline should be updated to reflect when clothing was first invented and by whom... "According to the study, our extinct relatives, the Neanderthals, likely made clothing before us using similar bone tools about 15,000 to 70,000 years ago." https://hyperallergic.com/681497/scientists-have-found-the-earliest-evidence-of-leather-clothes/

The study, curiously is the same one used to claim homo sapiens were the first to invent clothes -_- https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)00956-1 98.97.45.204 (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your comments - and request re the date the first clothing may have occurred in human history - the date and related seem to be somewhat unclear in the reponsible scientific literature afaik (see "Clothing" and related) - at the moment, the template notes 120,000 years ago as a reasonable, and supported, estimate - at least until a better estimated date (with well-established supporting evidence) is presented - the noted date in the current template is based, at least in part, on the 2021 studies described at => https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)00956-1 - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Dates of bipedalism and cooking

 * Controlled use of fire and cooking may be separate and at least for cooking or widespread cooking, current data doesn't seem to support 1.7 Mya. See the updated lead of Control of fire by early humans. Is the reference for that date the study at the third point or which one(s) is/are claiming that date?


 * Concerning bipedalism, what about the recent findings about Danuvius guggenmosi suggesting it evolved in these 11.62 Mya?

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cooking begins with but a) that is just one study without direct evidence (but genetic data) b) skimming the study I couldn't find where it got the "1.8 million to 2.3 million years" from, or at least the "to 2.3 million years".
 * - Thank You for your comments - and suggested improvements - not clear - are there specific changes in the dates on the current template that may be better than those noted at present?


 * 1 - "Bipedalism" - 7.0 Mya (current) => __?__ Mya (proposed)


 * 2 - "Fire Control" - 1.5 Mya (current) =>__?__ Mya (proposed)


 * 3 - "Cooking" - 1.5 Mya (current) => __?__ Mya (proposed)


 * Specific proposed dates (and further comments & related "WP:RS") welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These aren't necessarily suggested improvements yet, these are mostly questions about these issues because it seems these may need get changed or would need refs to get specified.
 * What about adding refs to each of the items? Currently it's not clear what was used to determine that likely rough estimated date.
 * Hopefully others can help with the below, maybe there should be a note for WP:WikiProject Archaeology/Anthropology.
 * "Bipedalism" - 7.0 Mya (current) => 11.62 Mya (proposed)
 * "Fire Control" - 1.5 Mya (current) => add specific ref(s) referring to specific evidence (proposed)
 * "Cooking" - 1.5 Mya (current) => 0.78 Mya (proposed)
 * Cooking currently also isn't mentioned in Timeline of human evolution and should probably get added there if a date has good evidence and is not in contradiction to what is widely thought by the field's community without good-quality somewhat-direct evidence.
 * Moreover, maybe changes to the brain could be integrated into the graphic, maybe as a separate item for "Increase in brain size" (e.g. 2.3 Mya) and/or otherwise.
 * Lastly, the undefined template or collapsible boxes could be used to add further info (explanations and/or short bulletpoints with key info). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Thanks again for your comments - seems you're requesting suggestions (with supporting WP:RS refs) from others - I *entirely* agree - Comments Welcome from others - esp those more knowledgeable about this than I - yes - I made the original template - and have maintained this template over the years - but depended on the best available information on the related Wikipedia articles (ie, I'm not an expert in the field, only interested) - re "brain size" - reluctant to add this at first glance since the supporting evidence may be more interpretable than substantial at the moment I would think - re "" - new to me - may have to do some homework with this at some opportunity - iac - Thanks again for your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)