Talk:Timeline of historic inventions/Archive 1

message: Are "central heating" and the "clock" really ancient inventions?
Perhaps clock should be sun dial or pendulum?
Central heating .... ??
mirwin 22:32 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)
----
The ancient world had centrally heated water for bath houses. I don't think they would have too much problem with bellows pumping slaves.What's wrong with that sentence... I mean its gramatical and all.....
Water clocks based on gravity predate mechanical clocks. And they were more accurate than them for the first couple of hundred years of ticking. 
Lots to do here but first I'm going to Timeline of chemical element isolation
* I have moved the Timeline of chemical element isolation reference to the List of timelines page, as it fits better there and this page is really technology related. kiwiinapanic
----
Are measurements of the earth's dimensions (200 BC) and rotation (350 BC) really inventions (technology) or scientific discoveries/observation?  See other timelines such as Timeline of solar system astronomy. - kiwiinapanic 22:45 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
-------
I'm confused about the line
* Sumerian picto-graphic writing
because the article Sumer mentions a cuneiform but not pictographic writing. Can anyone shed light on this? -- Tarquin 16:40 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
This list has lots of shaky info. Specifically I remember reading that the circular saw was invented by a woman in an egalitarian religious utopian colony in America; not by an English male. Now where is that source... Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 16:51 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
I was wondering .... 
In St. Louis, Nikola Tesla made the first public demonstration of radio communication in 1893. He was addressing the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and the National Electric Light Association at St. Louis, he described and demonstrated in detail the principles of radio broadcasting.  
In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis in the same year - two years before Marconi's first experiments-Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube. IEEE reference
If the date of the first practical, fielded, version of the invention is to be used, does this demonstration count as to being the 1st Radio signal? reddi 03:34, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clocks and heating 

message: The 35th and 31st centuries BC have long been filed under the third millennium BC. This is wrong. As I'm unwilling to assert that all these things were invented in the 4th millennium, I've cut them out and archived them right here, to be restored correctly by anyone who has good data on the real dates. Dandrake 06:33, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
===35th century BC===
* irrigation -Ancient Egypt
* surveying
===31st century BC===
* Drainage and Sewage system in India
* Dams, canals, stone sculptures using inclined plane and lever in Sumeria
-------
There are two entries for parachute.  No sources, but someone should fix this. -prat 12:46, 2004 Jan 15 (UTC)
----------
Are SACD and DVD-audio important inventions? Only time will tell, but for now I don't think we can say so. Otherwise, they are just another format, like 8-track tape. -- The Anome 13:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  35th and 31st centuries 

message: * Drainage and Sewage system in India
* Dams, canals, stone sculptures using inclined plane and lever in Sumeria
-------
There are two entries for parachute.  No sources, but someone should fix this. -prat 12:46, 2004 Jan 15 (UTC)
----------
Are SACD and DVD-audio important inventions? Only time will tell, but for now I don't think we can say so. Otherwise, they are just another format, like 8-track tape. -- The Anome 13:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[31st century BC]]

message: How about a List of accidental inventions? Like silly putty, play-doh, etc? Gflores Talk 05:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of accidental inventions? 

message: Wikipedia:Notability: "A list should contain only notable entries"
* Fundamental breakthrough (No prior art, not just variation)
* Universal/generic nature (archetype)
* New brand/product alone does not qualify
* Apparent contemporary popularity is irrelevant ("Notability is not popularity")
* Citation in media alone does not mean automatic qualification - relevance comes first
I urge anyone making additions to this list, especially when the immediate past and present is concerned (1990s and 2000s), to better think twice before adding something easily. Have a look at the inventions mentioned here, and what makes them worthy to be included: they represent a fundamental breakthrough, and they are of an universal and generic nature, NOT a new product building upon well-known archetypes, NOT a new brand and NOT a minor variation of existing stuff. The first portable games console, the first digital audio player, the first internet search engine may be entries qualifying for this list (no matter if they are well-known brands/products today or not - popularity is NOT a criteria for this list, and no, the mentioning in a popular magazine is neither), I-Pod, Wii or YouTube are surely not, keeping that in mind. Please give it a thought and maybe put it up for discussion here first if you are unsure. Quantity is not quality. Thank you. Bluebird47 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article is currently OR.WolfKeeper 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This clearly cannot be a list of all inventions (there's massive numbers of inventions- inventing things is easy- it's inventing something particularly clever or useful that is hard). This is a list of the most important inventions.WolfKeeper 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For an item to be on the list we need to reference that the particular invention is considered to be one of the greatest inventions of all time; otherwise the entry should be removed, as by adding it here we are saying that it is especially important, and that is OR and that is not allowed in the wikipedia.WolfKeeper 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the article is Timeline of invention, not List of most important inventions. There is nothing in the title to even suggest that the article should only include the most important inventions ever. If you want a list of the most important inventions ever, then you can always create a new article to deal with it, but there is no need to restrict the current article in such a way. If the size of the article is a problem, then it can always be divided into several smaller articles, as it has been suggested in #Splitting page below. Jagged 85 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, because the article becomes unreadable if you include every invention. Basically, any article has to be restricted in scope to be something that can be sensibly covered here. Otherwise we will end up with every patented invention listed here, if it has been mentioned by any news source (and in practice many of them would be paid to mention it behind the scenes). That doesn't work; the wikipedia is not lists. This kind of article only works if you stick to things that are more important than normal, and webmail for example simply doesn't make the cut; it just isn't of the same quality as things that feed people or keep people alive or for which there are no reasonable alternatives; and that's why you won't be able to find a reference to it being a truly important invention.WolfKeeper 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest anything that does not and should not have its own a Wikipedia article should be discounted, but other than that, I would be inclined to include most things (excepting variations). -- Beland (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventions qualifying for this list 

message: In my opinion, there have been a rash of questionable additions and changes to this list recently. The edits appear to be nationalistic in nature. I've been trying to correct errors, but I'm getting overwhelmed. In the past, I simply had to cite my sources and that was that, but it appears that there are groups of people who seem to be pursuing an agenda of rewriting history (see Talk:Pottery). I'll continue to try to keep this list and source articles updated, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Brunnock 14:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable edits 

message: I don't think chess qualifies as an invention. The first board game might be an invention, but I don't want to start listing every board game ever designed. --Brunnock 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess 

message: Are these individual inventions? Or just variations on water channels? --Brunnock 16:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , drainage was developed by the Sumerians along with irrigation. --Brunnock 13:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrigations, canals, drainage, ... 

message: I can't see how "Blu-ray discs" can be compared to telephones and automobiles. Not everything can be classified as an invention. Blu-ray discs are no more than a sort of compact discs and those were "invented" in 1970s, but hey, once we have started we could also list Memorex 52x CD-R:s to. Why stop? I "invented" a "stone-washer" when I was eight, that should also join the list. -Funper 22:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Many of the latest "inventions" are simply standards, variations on a theme, or even marketing gimmicks. Feel free to purge the list. --Sean Brunnock 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not hesitate but there is to much. Suggesting rewrite of the article? --Funper 19:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's necessary to rewrite the article. If there's an entry you think should not be on the list, just remove it and make a note in the edit summary. --Sean Brunnock 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray, DVD drivers and Intel Pentium processors 

message: Since there were versions before Bell, perhaps a note to make it clear? Perhaps a list in paranthesis by those preceding him?DanielDemaret 15:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are thorough articles at Invention of the telephone and Timeline of the telephone. I'd say pick an inventor and have the entry in this article point to Timeline of the telephone. No need to reproduce that timeline here. --Sean Brunnock 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Telephone

message: A sketch is not an invention. That's why this list doesn't state that Leonardo invented the helicopter and Babbage invented the computer. --Sean Brunnock 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try telling that to the patent office.WolfKeeper 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there's a difference between something that self-evidently wouldn't work with the technology of the time (Leonardo's helicopter) and something that would (Babbage's computer). The evidence from the London Science Museum's construction of the difference engine with contemporary techniques is that Babbage's idea works.WolfKeeper 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no patent office during the Middle Ages. The rule on this timeline is first working version. That's been the rule for years. Please respect the rules. If you want to make changes, please discuss it first. --Sean Brunnock 15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to delete all the patent based inventions, or move them to a different date then. The patent offices don't consistently require a working version. Also, this is a very non standard definition of invention that you are attempting to use.WolfKeeper 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Patents have only been around for a few hundred years. This timeline goes back over a million years. Therefore, patents are irrelevant to this article. --Sean Brunnock 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear that that is so. Also, I'm trying to get my head what you mean here, or what the ramifications of it are. So if I think up a device, draw a picture of it, hand the diagram to a machinist, and he builds it and it works. Then according to the standards of this article the machinist is the one that invented it?WolfKeeper 16:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not interested in hypothetical situations and I'm not interested in doing original research. --Sean Brunnock 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Great. In that case, please can you give a reference to the definition of 'invention' you are using in this article then? Since you aren't engaged in OR it should be easy to give this.WolfKeeper 17:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could read the invention article- An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty...A "castle in the air" or a "pie in the sky" (or "castles in Spain") may refer to a creative idea which does not reach fruition due to practical considerations. --Sean Brunnock 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketches are not inventions 

message: I boldly changed the name Atlatl to Spear Thrower, because the link stated that the device was invented in North Africa.  Atlatl is presumably the North/South American name.  I think 'Spear Thrower' is more widely recognised - I had never heard of Atlatl, and couldn't guess what it could possibly be.  Better to go for an internationally recognised term.  In my country, however, it is known as a Woomera and may predate the North African invention, but I don't have a reference to prove it. It is also known as a 'Throwing Stick', but that name is ambiguous as it could also apply to a stick which is itself thrown rather than a stick which does the throwing. An example of this is the boomerang.Iramoo Bearbrass 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Disputes_over_style_issues --Sean Brunnock 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you should discuss that on the Atlatl article. --Sean Brunnock 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlatl changed to Spear Thrower 

message: Year 1900 is in 19th century, not 20th, how can we fix it? --Vlad Jaroslavleff 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, 1900 is part of the [[1900s], so it went under that heading. A case of pick the lesser of two evils. --Sean Brunnock 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1900 

message: Wolfkeeper,
Did da Vinci create a ball bearing or did he just draw one? --Sean Brunnock 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He definitely drew one. It's the earliest known diagram or mention of one. It seems reasonable to assume that he invented it. Generally, most inventions are dated from patent date. A patent is just a document with a diagram and description.WolfKeeper 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drawings are not inventions. See above. --Sean Brunnock 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. They certainly can be. But the question might be whether they had successfully invented it. It seems to me that the real question would be with a drawing as to whether the diagram *as described* is actually a workable design with the technology of the day.WolfKeeper 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a working model of one on display in Melbourne Australia right now, alongside models of all his other inventions .  I had a play with it last week - it certainly looks like it works.  Come over and have a look for yourselves! (closes 1 October). Perhaps the exhibition will move to a location near you????  Iramoo Bearbrass 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it odd that Da Vinci is listed as inventing the ball bearing on this article, but neither his article nor the ball bearing article mentions it. 69.60.229.26 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ball bearing 

message: Can someone explain what this invention is? Is it significant enough to have a place in this article? - TexMurphy 09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Ring Fabry-Perot (SRFP) Resonator 

message: Or specific architectural inventions such as the arch, dome or column. Mr Miles 20:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture is not mentioned 

message: This word was "invented" by charles dickens in bleak house, surely it deserves a mention? ~ SleweD 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of "invention" is best listed in a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boredom 

message: "Timeline of the most important inventions"
In titles, the important words are all capitalized, so it'd be Timeline of the Most Important Inventions
But I can't figure out how to change it (can't find the title text in the 'edit this page' tab) so someone else do it, please.
166.214.214.183 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wikipedia house style is defaulting everything to lower case unless you have to for it to make sense or proper nouns, but have the first letter uppercase.WolfKeeper 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, oh well. Nevermind then ^_^' 166.214.67.223  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.67.223 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Title 

message: But multi-touch screens are.
An iPhone is really not a notable invention and should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas d (talk • contribs) 09:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPhone is not a notable invention 

message: 7000 BC: Drill in Mehrgarh
7000 BC: Bow drill in Mehrgarh
7000 BC: Dental drill in Mehrgarh (Pakistan)
7000 BC: Surgery in Mehrgarh
7000 BC: Dental surgery in Mehrgarh
It seems wrong to list the same invention five times, but then again, it's not easy to decide which of these entries are redundant, and how many are worth keeping. I'm going to cut it down to just 'bow drill' and 'dental surgery', but fix it if you disagree.
Tocky 02:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  drill, dental drill, bow drill, surgery, dental surgery 

message: I know that the 12 and 13th centuries were pretty dismal, but that does not mean these sections should be bolstered by listing every single thing a few  folkds in the Middle East purportedly made (esp. when most of the damn links don't even point at real objects, e.g; Programmable robot). It's not as if every single thing by Edison or DaVinci are listed... --Belg4mit 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW that one was in the news recently. The programmable robot is real enough. It was programmed by running cord around a cylinder with nails on it. You can program the movement by turning the cord back around the nail- this causes the cylinder to spin the other way as you unwind the cord; and the cylinders are attached to the wheels of the robot. It was very clever, and IMO deserves to be here.WolfKeeper 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectivity/Propaganda 

message: Some inventions here are listed more than once, in different centuries, like the fountain pen, parachute, adding machine, etc. Things can only be invented once, can't they? --Marshmello 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  An item can be invented in one culture, and later re-invented in another culture which never received knowledge of the invention from the first one.  The inclusion statement at the top of this article implies that each item should only be listed once.  I would recommend checking the articles on each invention to make sure that all of the multiple claims are described there, and then pick the appropriate one to list here. People who want to get the "full story" about multiple re-inventions (or when the device became practical or popular to use) can click through to the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated items 

message: I am not registrated for enough a long time on en:wikipedia. Please can you make a link to the french article :fr:Chronologie de l'histoire des techniques. Thanks --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Although the australian scramjet flew first, it didn't create positive net thrust, so I'm going to argue that the American scramjet system 'invented' scramjets; and I propose to change this entry. Comments before I do this?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You argue that da Vinci's sketches count as inventions but Australia's scramjet wasn't? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given there are working models of da Vinci's sketches, yes. Have they successfully invented the scramjet though? What kind of propulsion system doesn't produce net thrust?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're talking in circles. First you argue that da Vinci's sketches count as inventions even though he never developed working versions. Now you're saying that the Australians didn't invent the scramjet even though they created a working version. You have your own set of rules and you keep applying them differently to win whatever debate you're involved in. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the contrary, you have arbitrarily created your own set of rules (which vary significantly from the wikipedia's policies) and are trying to force them to be used here. I'll accept a link to a notable source saying that the Australian researchers have successfully built a fully working scramjet within the next two weeks, otherwise it's gone.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it wasn't a worlds first, but that's a test flight, and it doesn't say that it was a fully working scramjet system; and other references say it wasn't capable of sustaining flight. Unless the invention is a propulsion system with negative net thrust? A propulsion system that slows the vehicle that carries it down? A great invention, clearly historic!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you think that Aeolipiles are rockets, then it's not a stretch to say that the Australians developed a working scramjet. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works in what sense? What does it do? The aeolipile at least opened temple doors. It doesn't seem that they have successfully invented a scramjet if it doesn't accelerate. This was only a successful test flight of a partial implementation of an invention.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aeolipile rockets were used to open temple doors? Where on earth do you learn this stuff? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So you went ahead and deleted the scramjet entry. Like I said Vlad- you operate by your own rules. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow the core policies of the wikipedia isn't to 'operate by your own rules'. And who the heck is Vlad?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What policy are you talking about? There's a policy on "partial inventions"? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a policy about unverifiable content, and this was. Try reading the core policies and actually following them, OK?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a citation for the Australian scramjet right in this thread. --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is not sufficient for something to have been invented, it has to be a historic invention, it has to actually have had a direct impact on the world. You have completely failed to show this. This engine didn't produce positive thrust, didn't maintain altitude, only worked in a screaming dive. Yeah, a real good invention for this article that is. As an R&D test it excelled, but it's not a complete invention. If you believe otherwise you simply have to give us a reference saying that it was.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  What do you get out of this? Why do you do this crap? Why can't you just read books, take classes and educate yourself instead of pretending to be an expert? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you say. You're the one making a positive claim (WP:OR) without any decent references on this topic.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Claim? What claim? First you ask for comments, so I made a comment. Then you ask for a citation, so I give a citation. Now you're claiming that scramjets aren't historic enough. Did you forget to take your bipolar medication or something? --Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I took yours and threw it away, just to see what would happen. Now we know!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  scramjets 

message: Can someone please remove the invention of homosexuality at the bottom of the 1st millennium ce. I tried to remove it but I can't find it in the source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.229.64 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out yesterday. You may have a caching problem. Try using the reload function of your browser on the article. If that fails clear the cache in your browser, and then reload, and if that fails it may be your ISP has cached and old version of the page- you should check with them.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Vandalism 

message: I'm proposing taking this out, unless there's objections. It's unclear that it's really the best thing since sliced bread, unless anyone has a good reference...?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  iRobot vacuum cleaner 

message: It seems like most of the 2000s inventions have been moved to the 2000s in science and technology page. Isn’t the purpose of this article to put a list of inventions all in the same place? Just a thought, because the 2000s seem very sparse on the page. I realize that a lot of the stuff on the 2000s in science and technology page is about technological developments instead of inventions, but there's still some stuff that could probably be included. Shapeshift1 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's too early for people to say what the most important inventions are yet. A lot of inventions like the internet would be such a tiny blip on peoples radar the time, and if you told people about it they would laugh, but 20 years later... OMG the internet!!!!!!!- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we’re gonna wait for another decade to add stuff to the list which has already been invented? I think the least we can do is thoroughly check out the List of emerging technologies page and think about adding some of those things, though I’m sure it’s already been done. I definitely think more should be added (as if you couldn’t tell). Shapeshift1 (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not waiting. But history normally starts about 30 years ago. That's how long historians normally take to work out what it all meant. To be honest, the wikipedia is way ahead of the curve.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that’s ridiculous, not to say I don’t see where you’re coming from. I honestly don’t see the harm in including things that have been recently invented and seem important, because we certainly have a list of what those things are. How would that be a bad thing? I think it would add a lot to the article. Shapeshift1 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You really need to find a reliable source that consensus says that, without any hyperbole, means that x is one of the most important inventions of all time. A lot of 'inventions' are just neater versions of what went before. Some people keep adding the iphone here for example, but it's just a neat cell phone/organizer.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict that 2000s inventions like SpaceCraftOne, Braille Gloves, the Hybrid Car, Light Transmitting Concrete, Infrared Fever Screening System, the artificial liver, and the phone tooth qualify for the list. These are only suggestions. CaptainGood (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hybrid_electric_vehicle#History - 1901 ;-) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000s Inventions 

message: The dates of invention and inventors for many of the inventions are disputed by the very Wikipedia pages they link to. (For example, scissors are listed as invented by da Vinci under 16th century). 66.169.137.49 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Unreliable Source 

message: This article is being used as semi-Arabic propaganda. Take a look at the Medieval section. It's completely absurd. "Robots" don't factor into it. These are wind-up toys (among the other nonsense on the list). Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda, it's a place for facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with "Arabic propaganda". During the time the Arabs were having their own Golden age, which is why all these things were developed. Granted, there are a lot, but frankly compared to Europe, you can see one. The Arabs had the best scientific minds at the time, because most of Europe was a bunch of barbarians trying to fill in for the Romans. I think a lot of these inventions qualify for the criteria above, and frankly they are important. No matter what that region is like today, back from the 10th to 14th centuries, they were the strongest in science. Rearre11 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: Was all that stuff in the 13th century (by Al-Jazi) really made then?
Seems very weird.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.39.239 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he was the real deal. Prolific inventor; very innovative.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Why is the invention of money not listed? eu.stefan (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money 

message: I know that since I'm just a lowly IP, people can undo any of my edits with impunity so I'm bringing it up here: Wiki is not a historic invention.  This seems to me to be self evident and it's inclusion is due to the tendency of including anything wiki related in any and all articles (such as any reference made about wikipedia by a person or in media quite often being).  The world wide web is a historic invention, GPS is historic, wiki is not.--72.1.222.61 (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki is not a historic invention 

message: This entry was removed from Timeline of heat engine technology as being not relevant to that article:
::* c. 1000 AD - Avicenna describes the method of steam distillation in order to extract essential oils. Marlene Ericksen (2000), Healing with Aromatherapy, p. 9, McGraw-Hill Professional, ISBN 0658003828
I don't dispute its removal, but since it is referenced, I didn't want it to get 'lost' either, so I have posted it here in case someone wants to add it to this list, or another one elsewhere.EdJogg (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steam distillation/essential oils