Talk:Age of Discovery

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelD6969.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the article would benefit from having a section on the origin of the term itself; when was it first used, who coined it, etc. I've found no information about this so far. If anyone can point me to reliable sources on the matter, I'll make the edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausíhar (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

Just keep looking harder its in the paragraph oh and whomp whomp go 😭. 50.223.161.43 (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

"Both terms are considered problematic, as they are both Eurocentric terms with white supremacist undertones. Regions encountered and settled by Europeans were already discovered and explored, The terms not only strip the humanity" this is cringe af lmfoa seriously who wrote this, remove immediately please chofl71.88.176.41 (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Ive removed the parapgraph again. It was first added on 17 June so we've been fine with a lead that did not have it for a long time. The problems I have with the addition are: 1) None of this discussion is in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead. 2) It's not in the source cited – at least not the "white supremacy" bit. Given that failure to verify, I'm not going to assume that the rest is in there either, especially since I am not even awarded the courtesy of a page number to check.

If there is substantial discussion about the "Age of Discovery" – both as a historical era and a term – in reliable sources as Eurocentricis (I doubt "white suprematist"), this content can be added in the body of the article first and then maybe summarized in the lead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

On the List of Major Discoveries thing, it says that Cook discovered Antarctica in 1773, when in reality he only discovered nearby islands; Antarctica itself was discovered in 1820. The discovery of Antarctica is almost never attributed to Cook, so it shouldn't be included here. Someone should edit the list so that discovery is not included, or make it so it says something like "islands near Antarctica" instead.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but after I noticed this it bothered me for awhile, so i decided to post here. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.33.4 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

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

• Ruta de Cortés.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps "European Age of Discovery" would be better? - Francis Tyers · 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

probably Cleter (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Please insert short texts outlining the Dutch, English and French contributions to European exploration 2001:4C4E:1E0D:2500:1881:A4AE:51D7:27CF (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Maritime discovery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Maritime discovery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Renaissance exploration and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Renaissance exploration until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect European discovery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#European discovery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

There's internal inconsistency here. There are 26 instances of words that end in "ward" (like toward and westward) and seven that end in "wards" (like towards and westwards). Three Ward words were either in a footnote or "reward". That's fine inconsistency, as is me mixing a number (26) with a word (seven) in the very same talk page sentence. Out there in article space, though, whole other deal. It's one way or the other, same as months before days and days before months. Or serial commas, as in honour, colour and labour. Me, I like Ward words, especially in motion contexts. But if most respondents here vote for Wards words, so be it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@Nashville whiz: Care to vote for, elaborate on or otherwise discuss an option? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand your temptation to have a uniformed consistency in articles, because that's what I strive to bring certain pages as well, but here it's not the case. "Toward" and " towards" may well be two admissible ways to mean the same thing: in the direction of. However, in all English-speaking countries, besides the US and Canada, "towards" is the more common spelling. Regarding "westward" and "westwards" and other similar words in this article, from my point of view, it's better to say "sailing westwards" rather than "westward", and "westward expansion" than "westwards expansion" in a sentence. As is evident, these are not the same. But fine, let others have their say on this. Nashville whiz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

It was your fine idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, I'm not sure I know what you mean. Is it that new thing people call "sarcasm"?Nashville whiz (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

No. Is this the place you suggested I bring my concern, the "t/p"? If so, there you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Making a (possibly unfounded) presumption, this is an example of Wikipedia having a high proportion of editors who are too used to computer languages rather than spoken languages. You get inconsistencies like this. Sometimes it is better to use one form rather than the other, simply because is sounds better. This would not bother someone who wrote poetry, for instance. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with ThoughtIdRetired. Neither is incorrect but in some cases I find that one sounds better than the other. I don't think that combing through the articles to standardize on one form or the other will yield the best results. Glendoremus (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. Nashville whiz (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The coverage of the revolution in European ship technology is not properly addressed in this article. These are notes (to be added to) of sources that may be useful.

• "When and where a third mast was first fitted is not known but a Catalan document believed to date from 1406 shows a detailed sketch of a three-masted ship. Certainly within a few years of the adoption of a two-masted rig in England, there followed a third, and by the mid 15th century a three-masted square rig was in use throughout northern and southern Europe." (Adams, J. R.. A Maritime Archaeology of Ships: Innovation and Social Change in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe: A Maritime Archaeology of Early Modern Europe . Oxbow Books. (loc 2309)) and more within same source.
• "It is not generally realized in Europe... that sometime in the 14th and 15th centuries there appears to have been a fundamental change in the European methods of shipbuilding which resulted in ships capable of undertaking the voyages of exploration in the late 15th and 16th centuries...." (goes on to mention Basque shipbuilders). Basil Greenhill quoted in the report on the Red Bay excavations.^{[1] : v 1, 17}

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a good bibliography under "Further reading" on the Exploration page. Is there a way to link this bibliography with the bibliography listed here, and vice versa? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration#Further_reading 134.124.26.122 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

The article seems completely blind to the scale of trade originating in the northern part of the new world. We have 21 mentions of gold, but none of whale oil and cod. Yet maritime archaeologists who specialise in the Ships of Discovery can be found saying things like:
Dazzled by the glitter of gold and silver, historians have consistently overlooked the fact that more ships sailed for northern destinations than for southern ones, returning with cargos of whale oil and fish the net worth of which far exceeded the occasional, but dramatic, shipments of bullion and jewels from Central and South America.^[1]
This exploitation followed on quite rapidly from the discovery of this part of the Americas, with two key known start dates for this being 1517 and 1520.
The quote given above is from a conference in 1992 – substantially more than a quarter of a century ago. So there is little excuse for Wikipedia not to cover this unfashionable part of the subject. There may be plenty of coffee-table books that omit it, but solid academic sources are available. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]