Talk:Age of Discovery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Age of Discovery is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 23, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
June 22, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted
September 1, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Improvement drive[edit]

A related topic, spice trade, is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support or comment on the nomination there if you are interested.--Fenice 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Have to mention the Islamic age of discovery and the Chinese age of discovery.

Or at least show the webpage links of those 2 earlier legacies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CEOofA (talkcontribs) 15:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ending in the 17th century[edit]

The age of exploration did not end in the 1600s as the opening portion of the article says. The South Pacific was still being explored in the 1850s by the American navy. --Aj4444 (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)--Aj4444 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Conquest of Siberia[edit]

See also History_of_Siberia#Yermak_and_the_Cossacks --ajvol 13:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ioann IV the Terrible[edit]

If you ranames Ioann IV the Terrible to Ivan IV the Terrible, why not to rename Nicolas II to Nikolay II?--Nixer 12:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your analogy. In both cases, I am following the common English-language usage. They are known in English as Ivan and Nicholas, respectively. I have literally never seen Ioann in an English-language text by a native speaker. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Nicholas is neither an official name, nor a popular.--Nixer 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow that remark. Nicholas is the normal name of in English for tsars named Николай. See, for example, (a site developed jointly with the Hermitage Museum), Nicholas and Alexandra (bestselling book by Robert K. Massie, and a 1971 film based on that book). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Look at this for example: [1] In 1570 there appeared the official mentioning of the meeting between Russian Tsar Ioann (IV) the Terrible and Calvinist Pastor Rockita who arrived from Poland as a member of the delegation of king Sigizmund August.. Or here:[2] There are the remains of Russian Emperors from Peter I to Nikolai II and members of their families (excluding Peter II and Ioann IV). Here: [3] for example, Ioann IV wrote decrees to the CyrilloBeloozersk monastery against the disorders that were After the terrible Moscow fire o 1547 Ioann IV publicly addressed Metropolitan Macarius with these words: Here are not tsars, but patriarchs:]--Nixer 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying the others are never used. I'm saying that they are uncommon in English, and not the names by which the average educated native English speaker would know these people. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Since you continue to revert me, and I do not feel you have presented a good case to do so, I will bring this to WP:3O [added by Jmabel]

I found this request for a third opinion in the dispute and budding edit war between Jmabel and Nixer. I have reviewed the main page, this talk page, and the edit histories, as well as the references given. My ruling on the matter is that this is the English language Wikepedia, and that since the vast majority of native speakers of English, in trying to find information about a certain person, will do a search for "Ivan" and not "Ioann" (never heard of it before today), this article should refer to the person as "Ivan" in all of the main references. (I have no objections to parenthetical references, such as this, noting that the person's name is sometimes spelled "Ioann".) Nixer, please stop reverting the page to the "Ioann" form. Feel free to link this page to the Russian language Wikipedia, but stop trying to change the way the English-speaking world spells the name. [I will delete the request for a third opinion, and I hope this settles the dispute.] Aumakua 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I cited the sources above, which call him Ioann. Also a text under picture in the Ivan the Terrible article calls him Ioann (I am not the author of this text). It indicates that many people are more fomiliar with this name. Besides it is more correct.--Nixer 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
While I don't have 'Googlecountitis' and would never make a final decision based solely on that, I think it is informative to see what the number is, sometimes. A Google search on English pages (this is the English Wikipedia after all) for "Ivan the terrible" and "Ioann the terrible" shows a difference of about 356 THOUSAND to 145. Go convince those 356 THOUSAND people that a name they've never heard of is "more correct" and get back to us. Meanwhile, I've given my third opinion, which is the first and hopefully the last step in dispute resolution between reasonable people. If you absolutely insist that it has to say "Ioann" here, take it up with a mediator -- but do not revert it to Ioann unless you can show a lot better reason than you have so far, and get a consensus that you are right, first. This is my last word on the subject; I just dropped in to try to help settle a dispute, not to get embroiled in it. Aumakua 06:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Before the Portuguese?[edit]

The Portuguese voyages in the Atlantic were preceded by the Aragonese voyages and conquests in the Western Mediterranean and in parts of the Atlantic, such as the Canary Islands. Some Italian cities (which had built their own naval empires in the Eastern Mediterranean, as an offshoot of the Crusades) also participated in the early voyages of the Portuguese. It might be good to make a reference to these precursors and collaborators of the Age of Discoveries. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 20 Jan 2006.

Largely concur, although that characterization "Aragonese" seems misleading. Aragon itself was inland. The mariners in territories ruled by the Crown of Aragon were Catalan, Valencian, or Balear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

querer comparer navegação med que os pre medievais ja faziam e canárias com circunavegação fala sério né sagres ficava onde?magalhães era espanhol?aceita que dói menos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

até os barbarous Vikings foram mais longe nesse aspect anterior outra vcs acabaram com os guanches eram fossil vivo dos primeiros caucasoides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

what date and month was Ferdinand Magellan born[edit]

This section head was here with no question. The Ferdinand Magellan article says spring 1480. I doubt anything more accurate is known. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, just so you know, Native Americans were in America waaaaaayyyyyy before Columbus "discovered" it. talk

And oxygen existed for billions of years before Lavoisier "discovered" it. These things always relate to a particular perspective. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

sim os povos locais ja sabiam mas quem sabia de todos eles simultaneamente primeiro numa rede de dados vasta grande e pioneira catalogada registrada organizada etc vc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Exploration by land[edit]

Should exploration by land section be merged with conquest of Siberia?--Nixer 09:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

James Cook[edit]

I notice that James Cook was added to the lead paragraph, and since it was there I linked it. Certainly an important explorer, but isn't he a bit late for the era we are mainly talking about? One could just as well continue it down to Lord Franklin. Or Henry Morton Stanley. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He certainly doesn't belong there in the way that this article is defined, covering discoveries only up through the early 1600s. I'm going to delete him. He is mentioned at a later point in the article, though I'll leave that since it's clearly presented an afterthought to give greater context to the specific period covered here. 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

canal pobre coitado os ibericos ja tinham descoberto java grande nem batavos pos I reich foram tão tardios e caroneiros — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Conquest of Siberia[edit]

I don't agree to attribute it to the Age of Discovery,at least the Mongols had know perfectly the Siberia before the russian to conquer it.It is only a reconquer not a conquer.Ksyrie December 11, 2006

  • Then, inca people knew well where America is, so they 'discovered' it? Also, mongols have never wandered on a distance to Bering Strait, Kamchatka, Chukotka, and so on. They were discovered by people like Semen Dezhnev, Vitus Bering, Yerofey Khabarov, etc.Garret Beaumain (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Exploration[edit]

Although very interesting and important, the section "Chinese Exploration" has - to my opinion - not much to do with the "Age of Discovery", which is a western/European development in history. I suggest it to split the section "Chinese Exploration" into a new article. Demophon 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. - SimonP 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll be up to the challenge of creating a new article for it.--PericlesofAthens 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Done.--PericlesofAthens 19:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Explorers do be used as example[edit]

Following the removal of some names by Jim.henderson, I believe we should still use Pedro Alvares Cabral since he was the first European to reach what is now Brazil. Although he is less famous, we should not make him less famous by not using him as an example. SalvadorFernandesZarco

Actually it was User:SimonP who removed that name and a great many others. I wouldn't mind taking credit for it, but we mustn't claim someone else's good work. Where I went wrong was in leaving Cabral and his fellows in the intro. The intro should be short, and this worthy but unfortunately little known (among English speakers) figure ought to be omitted from it. Indeed, to improve the list in the introductory paragraph, I would trim out both Cabral and Cabot. We can't put every brave and clever 16th century explorer in the intro; that's why we have a whole article rather than just a long intro. Besides, if I'm counting correctly, Cabral's name is mentioned five times, in more than one section of the article and a caption. That's plenty. To give the fellow full justice requires giving him a whole article; just not this one. Jim.henderson 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

pinzon discovered brazil before cabral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Change the name of this article to "Age of Exploration"?[edit]

Due to the fact that the lands that were explored by europeans during this age were already "discovered" (if you will) by native peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is a good point. Also "Age of Exploration" seems to be the more common term.

No, all those places were also already explored by those natives, or what, does someone think there were no eaylier explorations? What matters is, some particular little culture reached out and discovered the geography of the whole world, or anyway explored and opened up the final connections. The Chinese carried out several long range voyages of discovery, the Arabs did a bunch more, and eventually the Europeans pretty much finished discovering the world. This is the last chapter of that long story. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The name of this page is dictated both by the description at the time, and then in both popular and academic history. All three of these descriptions are Eurocentric. The fact that the European discovery of the world was encyclopedically significant in itself (much as say the cultural-economic integration of Africa or Siberia into the world economy, or the international Chinese diaspora are significant), and that the popular and academic discourses of Eurocentric or European Exceptionalism in the European discovery of the world are encyclopedically significant). Ie: the ideology is commonly known by the page name, and is encyclopedically significant as an ideology as well as a description of a series of events.
  2. The European "Age of Discovery" or "Age of Exploration" also marked the period of the development of a world spanning international long distance trade economy which was dominated by Europeans, and a subsequent tool for the Europeans to economically appropriate and politically dominate the world. There's a uniqueness in human history, through
    1. The global impact, as opposed to the regional impact of (equivalent late medieval & early modern) Arabic, Indian, Central Asian or Chinese trade economies and trade diasporas
    2. The permanency and totality of European Colonisation which resulted.
  3. The current article sucks at expressing these things. When I decided to become an editor, it was a mishmash of pro-Portugese and pro-Spanish ideology surrounding the discovery of the Americas. The current article doesn't adequately discuss the impact of African or Indian economics, or the later Spice Island or Asian economies on discovery. There's a vastly insufficient coverage of the Eurocentrism of the Term, of equivalent moments of long distance trade integration and colonisation (Arabic, Indian, Chinese Coastal Diaspora, Polynesian Oceanic Diaspora would be the central comparisons due to the late medieval / early modern period and the role of trade), or of why when the Europeans did it, it was significant (hint: not that they're Europeans, but that they did it to everyone in the world at the same time). Finally, sources! Academic historians have been tearing these Eurocentric concepts apart for about 60 years now. We're vastly undersourced.

Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All right; so the question of changing the name to "exploration" seems settled since exploration is the method to discover things, while discovery is what you get from a successful exploration. Changing the name isn't going to improve things since a more precise name would also have to be much longer and confusing and less useful to readers. Your other points are either precisely on target (like, undersourced) or belong in another section. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Personally, I think a title change to something like Age of Exploration or Age of European Exploration would make more sense, considering the discussion below about the article which precedes this article chronologically. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue of "exploration" or "discovery" is an important one. "Discovery" as used here does not refer to finding an uninhabited land that no one knew existed; it refers to land with occupants who lost all their rights to ownership because European Christians claimed it and took it by force; this included Genocide on a mass scale. One would have to discuss these issues as they are in a legal sense, as this is the basis of US federal Indian law to this day: the Doctrine of Discovery. The Wikipedia article on that subject goes into it a little bit; so should this. Ebanony (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What was in it for the Mongols?[edit]

The article says: "Mongol states also unified much of Eurasia creating trade routes and communication lines stretching from the Middle East to China.[citation needed] A series of Europeans took advantage of these to explore eastwards."

How did the Europeans "take advantage" of the trade routes? The Mongols must have had some reason for letting them through. Can someone please explain what was in it for the Mongols? HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trade. There's not much point in establishing trade routes if you don't let anyone follow them. Iapetus (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Well, of course the article is centered on Iberia. That was the center of the action. A history of papermaking is Sinocentric, of Islam, arabocentric, of Organic Chemistry, Germanocentric, and of the initial populating of the world, Afrocentric, isn't it? Many developments develop from a particular center and no use trying to pump up marginal areas for fairness. The heroic (or villainous) captains who discovered the world 4, 5, 6 centuries ago were mostly Iberians, mostly working for Iberian kings. The linked Portugal article goes into some of the reasons for this, and this article is not the one that should try to provide great detail about it, because this is the one about how the world was discovered. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between Ibero-centrism, which is justified, and Spanish and Portuguese propaganda. Previous versions of these articles made very, very strong equations between the late medieval and early modern Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsular and modern Iberian nationalist politics. They also included needlessly long lists of individual Iberians without explaining the Gold, Silver, Slave, Colonial, Cloth or Spice trades. The article focused almost exclusively on the discovery and exploitation of South America without dealing with Portugal's major African, Indian and Spice Island trading interests. Additionally, there was no explanation of causes, but rather a chronicle of happenstance.
We should have an Ibero-centric article, which briefly discusses the displacement of Germanic and Russian interior trade routes, and Italian mediterranean trade routes; which also deals briefly with the decay and destruction of pre-Columbian societies, as it relates to the generation of Trans-oceanic colonies and trade. More importantly the relationship between Portuguese and African, Indian and Spice Island city-states / merchant-states needs to be increased, as does the general impact of increased access to commodities.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

meu filho dor de cotovelo dói né portugueses e espanhois só não permaneceram no topo por culpa dos teus donos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible deletion of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact article[edit]

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact will be suggested for deletion if none of its information is able to be included within this article, since it is a perfect example of Wikipedia:Content forking. If anyone involved in this article feels that it should be deleted post haste, go for it. I'm giving the editors of that article until June 29 before I go forward with its deletion, in case you all think it should exist within wikipedia, and wish to include some of its content in this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

These articles cover almost completely different subject matters and are both perfectly valid. There is some overlap, but it is pretty small. The timeframes and geographic scope are both very different. There is no reason they shouldn't continue pretty much as they are. - SimonP (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd have thought that Europeans (and others) exploring America and elswhere in the 15th century would have significant overlap with this article. But that's not reason for deletion. The problem is that this article mentions Europeans discovered America in 1492 or later (accepted by a majority of historians), while the other article going into possible exploration prior to 1492 (not accepted by a majority of historians, therefore following various individual points of view (POV)) which conflict with this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge no historians currently believe that the Americas were only discovered in 1492. L'Anse aux Meadows is pretty incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There is no claim in this article that Columbus was the first to reach America. Being first is really beside the point anyway. The importance of the Age of Discovery is not that a boat managed to make it across the ocean, but rather that when that boat returned information of the wider world was permanently incorporate into the European body of knowledge and led to permanent links between the continents. That is the series of discoveries that this page is all about. Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts are interesting, but they are merely curiosities that never had a wider effect on the history of the world. - SimonP (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not true according to some of the sources of the other article, which state the European explorers had maps and second hand knowledge of the New World/Africa/southeast Asia before they even left Europe, furthering their curiosity. Anyhow, the decision will be up to the masses. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't thing Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact should be deleted. While the content of that article is interesting, it discusses something of fundamentally different historical importance than this one. Consider the early contact (meaning not covered by this article) Did those early contacts fundamentally alter the way of life of the indigenous peoples of the Americas? Did that result in permanent demographic and cultural change? If we were to go back in time and prevent those old contacts from happening, would the world today be fundamentally different? The answer to all three of those questions is no. Asking those questions of the Age of Discovery gives the answer yes. That's why Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact should not be deleted. Lumping it in here gives too much importance to events that, in a macrohistorical context, were minor. In addition, while it is conceivable (although probably unprovable) to suppose that Columbus (or whoever) had knowledge of earlier accidental discoveries of the Americas, it is hard to believe that Columbus could have known about an ancient exchange of sweet potatoes and chickens between the Pacific and South America. Basically, the amount of fuss people make about Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is way out of proportion to any actual historical impact it had. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, and you make a good point Miss Madeline, as always. But wouldn't that make the name of this article moot? How can any contact, European or otherwise, logically precede the Age of Discovery? I saw the above discussion, and after today's discussion on the other article's deletion, agree that this article has to renamed somehow. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be renamed. That some discoveries happened beforehand does not mean that the main Age of Discovery isn't still a distinct period in human history. Saying that the Age of Discovery is an incorrect name because there were some minor pre-Columbian contacts is like saying the Industrial Revolution has to be renamed because of the discovery of the Baghdad Battery. - SimonP (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) There shouldn't be a rename. The first discoverer of many places (meaning the first person ever to reach that place) happened so long ago as to be unnamable. Anybody know the name of the first human ever to see North America? Is there any way of finding out? While such a person definitely existed, we know nothing about them other than that they were the first person to see North America and that they lived thousands of years ago. This applies to most places in the world, I suspect. But is creating a list of such anonymous discoveries useful? Even if the indigenous people of such a location have a legend about the discovery, there is no guarantee that the current indigenous people of a location are the first people ever to live there (for example, in many Inuit lands the Dorset people preceeded them). I'll agree that a list of legends about the discovery of places might be useful. In addition, the anonymous first people to reach most places might not have been out exploring deliberately; ie they were just hunting/making war/etc and just found a new place. In most cases, the Europeans crossing the oceans were actually looking for something, whether it be China, gold, spices, or a way around the land in their way. Since the European "discoverers" were in most cases actually looking for something, while the anonymous first discoverer might not have, this article should be Age of Discovery because they found something when deliberately looking. Including a note that the European "discoverers" were usually not the first person to reach the places they discovered would form an excellent paragraph. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality of sources[edit]

I reverted a good faith edit by a user who cited repeatedly from a generalist textbook aimed at an undergraduate audience. A number of dubious assertions in the article were unsupported (such as the Papacy's interest in Prester John in an early modern context), or the role of the black death in relation to long distance trade (for example, I've read numerous instances that the extension of cash wage labour throughout europe as a result of the black death increased long distance trade). Other statements in the article, that are generally agreed facts, are inadequately supported by citing a textbook that does not deal with the specific subject matter of the article.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For an article like this one that is a broad overview of a huge subject, a generalist text book is a perfectly valid source. We should try to have some more diversity of sources, but unfortunately that is the only one I had on hand yesterday. You should also have a look at WP:CITE, there is no need to reference basic facts that everyone agrees with and are trivial to verify. That Vasco de Gama reached India in 1498 is not the sort of fact that needs to be referenced, and adding cite tags to sentences like that is just pedantic. - SimonP (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As to the specific factual issues, I do agree that the Papacy being the one hunting Prester John is inaccurate and I've changed that reference. As to the Black Death, I don't think it can be argued that at least for a few decades it severely curtailed European trade and exploration. There are many scholars who believe that in the long term it might have boosted the European economy, but that is not what that sentence is talking about. The exact quote from the textbook that I used to reference that sentence is "In the middle of the 14th century, however, the overland route to China was severed by a conjunction of the Black Death, the vigorous expansion of the Ottoman Turks, and the overthrow of the Mongol dynasty in China." - SimonP (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The quality of a two of your citations is highly dubious, and fails to meet required standards. Other citations are acceptable, but its poor form to single source so many. Survey course level textbooks are of equivalent authority to encyclopaedia, which means no further appeal to authority is possible, so single sourcing is out.
  • Christian leaders, such as Prince Henry the Navigator, also launched expeditions in hopes of finding converts, or the fabled Prester John. claims an intentional motivation for Henry the Navigator in relation to Christianity and specifically to the Prester John myth. Claims of motivation require a citation. As motivation goes to historical opinion, I'd like something better than a first year survey textbook on the early modern period. As such, I've dubioused this.
  • The European economy was dependent on gold and silver currency, but low domestic supplies had plunged much of Europe into a recession.[1] is still dubious opinion. Opinion is an exercise of historical judgement. This would require a Review Essay at minimum in a peer reviewed journal of international significance or specialist expertise. Claiming a) Europe had a market b) Its market was dependent on specie supply and c) Europe suffered a recession (an anachronistic term coined c20) is [dubious ] due to conflicts within economic history and political economy over the structure of early modern European economic relations and would require expert citation. As such, I've dubioused this.
The other edits are brilliant and are putting this article in a proper network of context for the early modern period. Needs more Indonesian & Indian trade network impacts still! Fifelfoo (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC) corrected Fifelfoo (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
With no further discussion on the dubiousness of the Monetarist position on late medieval Europe, and, with the source for this being a 1992 textbook, I have deleted the sentences.Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Jensen, De Lamar (1992), Renaissance Europe 2nd ed. pg. 330


Didn't the Vikings discover America first? ( Dalponis (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discover, yes. First, no. See Viking. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Article is IMHO too blacklegendly. Influence of Spain is minimized, influence of Portugal maximized. While both play an important role in exploration, Treaty of Tordesillas defines who is and will be top dog for centuries. Please dispose of PC mumbo jumbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptn. Nemo (talkcontribs) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapters in human history.[edit]

It seems to me Wiki contributors have a strong bias when it comes to recent human history. The last 500 years reflect only a small portion of human accomplishments, failures, errors and successes. No human culture can claim sanctity, none can be seen as the ultimate evil, non-redeemable. Cultures are but a product of their times and should only be seen in their proper context. A native american culture may have deemed glorious the sacrifice and gut extraction of a god-loving member of society, but the deed is just as common to europeans who accepted quartering or burning at the stake. Africans, Asians and even north-pole inhabitants had their own rules and punishments, none too pretty.

May we please get rid of the "europeans-are-the-biggest-monsters-ever"? We were all human when we explored the unknown. We were all human when we killed and got killed in our exploration of our planet. Sometimes it was the climate that killed us, sometimes it was other creatures we were trying to compete with, sometimes it was other humans that were there first, or second, or third...

Western exploration and further conquest of the Americas is no different from the initial fight for food and territory that the first "real" americans had to endure 12.000 or so years ago. The America that Europeans "discovered" was as war-torn, class-divided as all of Europe was. It was just that the time was ripe for Europe to expand. It was time for the quasi-neolithic empires of the americas to give way. Just as the most poweful american cultures forced some to live up north in the ice, far away from the plentiful prairies, just as some tribes condemned other tribes to famine or slavery, so they were forced to retreat upon the advance of the new european force...just as in Europe some lost land and food and life and limb upon the advance of others. Just check History. All cultures have been violated, almost all have been in turn violators. That is the way we all are. I do not think we should judge the past with our present. I think we should be grateful that, timid and still feeble as it is, there is a global consciousness that abhors violence and war, yet understands that military forces ensure peace. Simply expressed: in the past the military was a way to conquer others. Now we hope it is just a planetary police that neither conquers nor steals, just forces all to behave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptn. Nemo (talkcontribs) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Find a credible secondary source of monograph length written by a historian of the period with a doctorate which has been positively reviewed in at least two history journals' review section. The interpretive position you're advocating is fairly far outside of the norm for historical interpretations conducted by professionals. You might notice that the article notes that brutal indigenous empires were replaced by brutal non-indigenous empires? Or perhaps that the radical change in human culture is described as forcible change, but not lamented or celebrated, merely noted in the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits (October 2009) as Wikipedia:COATRACK[edit]

Everything from 2.6 onwards to the end of 3 is a Coatrack for exciting explorations which occurred, but which are not RSed as considered by historians as part of the Age of Discovery. Dumped out to Major explorations after the Age of Discovery. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected and disambiguated links identified by WildBot--Uxbona (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Portraits of notable explorers[edit]

It would be nice to add some portraits of the most notable explorers and other important people of the Age of Discovery. These may be Marco Polo, Henry the Navigator, Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, Yermak Timofeyevich and some others. I understand that there are few contemporary portraits, but is it really a problem? What other editors think? Greyhood (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

the article his quite heavy with images, mainly the travel paths and routes, and ships (which testimony important evolution in sailing technologies). As there are allready detailed biographic articles about the explorers, and their portraits would not add crucial information, those were not included.--Uxbona (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


To continue to suggest Luis Vaz de Torres was (perhaps?) Portuguese is to perpetuate a myth invented by 19th/20th century Portuguese nationalist propagandists (who were understandably encourage Portuguese self-confidence) and was swallowed (unknowingly) by some British historians - because Galician and Portuguese spelling is so similar. To continue this claim here is to deliberately perpetuate this historical farce.Provocateur (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Provocateur, can you please source or reference this affirmation so that it can be used? thanks.--Wikitza (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing the lead image[edit]

I've changed the image of the Cantino map in the lead for one of better quality. Since I did not change it for another completely different image, I felt no reason to ask the other editors' opinions on the matter. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Age of Discovery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 03:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to fail this nomination. Although it is clear that a great deal of effort has been put into it, and the coverage is quite broad, I believe that it presently fails criteria 1a (prose) and 2a (citation), and a non-trivial amount of work will be required to address them. Both of these came up in the FAC in June, and still require attention. Here are some specific recommendations:

  • The article should be copyedited by someone with a stronger command of written English. Although much of the writing is of good enough quality, there are a fair number of ungrammatical howlers (including runon sentences, sentence fragments, and the like). (I might be in a position to do this in a few weeks, but it would be a work of some time for an article of this length.)
  • Although you correctly say in the FA candidacy that "obvious" facts (like the year in which Columbus discovered the Americas) do not need citations, there are many sections containing details that I would consider unobvious or at least not widely enough known to blindly accept. For example, I doubt much of the English-speaking world is knowledgeable about the exploration of Siberia (or would even know what sort of reference works to consult for details); most of that whole section is uncited. I know this is a pain for an article of this length and complexity, but I recommend that you provide citations for each paragraph.
  • If you really want this article to reach FA, make sure all of the images have {{Information}} templates that are properly filled out, with English descriptions. All of the images I checked (probably 3/4 of them) had adequate licenses, but some were a little short on descriptions and sourcing.

Not to add to your burden (or the length of the article), but I also observe that the section on global impact does not include mention of impact on the South Asian societies (India, Southeast Asian cultures, and Indonesia), or Central Asia (silk road economies).

-- Magic♪piano 20:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Magicpiano. It is really helpful. I can proceed to add sources and image information. The Siberian exploration chapter was developed by another user, and its a field were I myself have no knowledge, but I can research for sources as well as complete the "global impact" chapter. However a review on English would be great, as I'm not a native speaker. If anyone can help on this, that would be greatly appreciated. --Uxbona (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I'm willing to copyedit, but it probably won't be for a few weeks. Magic♪piano 13:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Native Americans-Vikings-Ice Age[edit]

There is no mention of Native American tribes, the first people who discovered the continent. Also Viking exploration needs to be mentioned, especially Leif Erickson. Columbus, himself, sailed to Iceland to find out information on finding a route to Japan. There was also an ice age that prevented Western exploration. No mention of this is in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article focus on the 15th-16th century exploration commonly known as the "age of discovery". Other previous or not directly related exploration is dealt with in articles such as Norse colonization of the Americas, Viking expansion, etc. Although you're right and a minor reference can be made on this.--Uxbona (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, Uxbona, we should focus on "the 15th-16th century exploration commonly known as the "Age of Discovery". That's what is makes it so difficult why you have started editwarting to include the section on the completely unrelated Chinese voyages in the Indian Ocean. Again, I agree that we should not inlcude the Vikings either, but, on the other hand, why should the voyages of a single Chinese admiral sailing the well-established trading routes in the Indian Ocean be more relevant to Columbus and European history than the Vikings being the first to discover the Americas and the the first maritime culture in world history to navigate to four continents? This makes no sense whatsoever. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

The title of this article should be called the Age of European Discovery. This is more accurate. The current title suggests that Europeans were the first people to explore. Native Americans explored and settled America 10,000 to 11,000 years ago after crossing the Bering Straight. There is also evidence that Native Americans used ships to explore the North West Coast of Alaska. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Age of Discovery" is the commonly used term to refer to the period of intensive systematic European exploration culminating in the 16th century, and it doesn't even need a disambiguation from other "Age o Discovery". See the previous discussion on this discussion page. Even with recent historiography forcing a name change from "Discovery" to "Exploration" it remains so. To add "European" to it would have the same effect on accuracy as adding it to the commonly used terms "Renaissance" or "Middle Ages". It is not a question of being more accurate, or "correcting" history: any search on google books will bring far more results for "Age of Discovery" than any of the other used or proposed alternatives. See Mancall reference in the introduction (Mancall, Peter C. (1999). "The Age of Discovery" in The Challenge of American History, ed. Louis Masur. John Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801862221. ), pp. 26–53. on the use of the term.--Uxbona (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

can someone please answer this question for me please[edit]

How accurate is the view that Portugal was the Atlantic pioneer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greeks, Phoenicians, Irish and Vikings sailed in Atlantic earlier than Portugese. But if we take the Late Middle Ages separately, Portugal was indeed the pioneer in the Southern Atlantic. GreyHood Talk 22:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinese missions[edit]

Reference to Chinese missions included in "prelude (1241–1438)", as it is a relevant fact, often quoted by reliable sources and experts, to understand the subject. Please see:

  • Peter C. Mancall' Mancall, Peter C. (2006). Travel narratives from the age of discovery: an anthology. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0195155971 (historian Peter C. Mancall has compiled some of the most important travel accounts of this era. Written by authors from Spain, France, Italy, England, China, and North Africa describing locations)
  • The Age of Discovery, 1400-1600 -David Arnold;
  • The Essential World History, William J. Duiker, Jackson J. Spielvogel p.335 and other
I agree. The missions are not part of the Age of Discovery, but the information does add useful context and background. SimonP (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Background for what? The Chinese missions are a separate event which had no impact whatsoever on the European exploration of the world. In fact, it did not even had a lasting impact on China where all records were, as you know, destroyed after Zheng He's death. We have a separate article for these voyages we can link to, Chinese exploration, that should suffice. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

o índico era o centro lá estavam as rotas não havia por que zeng he ir alem do indico ao contrario de quem fazia o caminho inverso vindo do oeste numa latitude mais evoluida e blokeada a passagem por rivalidades civilizacionais (e nem só vide como os padanicos sabotaram bizancio nas cruzadas e se aliaram a mouros contra ibericos para não perder regalias) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:4412:3C19:6F2F:2A6 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition and scope of the Age of Discovery[edit]

The Age of Discovery is defined by the overwhelming majority as an era in European history and European accomplishment. Chinese navigators has no more part in it than, say, the simultaneous voyages of Polynesian sailors in the South Pacific. The inclusion of the Chinese material is thus heavily POV. One could cite dozens of sources, I'l start with three which take a second to find so clear is the consensus:

  • David Arnold: The Age of Discovery, 1400-1600, backcover Exploring one of the most dramatic features of the late medieval and early modern period, this work covers the time when voyagers from Western Europe led by Spain and Portugal set out across the world and established links with Africa, Asia and the Americas.
  • Ronald S. Love: Maritime exploration in the age of discovery, 1415-1800, preface: European maritime exploration in the Age of Discovery united trade routes and paved the way for the modern global era.
  • Hazel Mary Martell: The Age of Discovery, 1993: Explores the history of the world from 1500 to 1650, an active period which included the Renaissance in Europe, European explorations among the ancient empires of Africa and South America, and the decline of the Mogul Empire in India.

Could added dozen more scholarly works corrobating the general view that we are talking here about the myriad of European explorers to land and sea, like Columbus, da Gama, Caboto, Pizarro, Amerigo Vespucci, Martin Waldseemueller, Barthomlomeus Diaz etc. etc. not Zheng He. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a European event, no one disagrees with that. But there is also a history of non-European exploration that provides useful background and context. It lets readers know how new such journeys were, how unprecedented. Fifty years ago it was considered acceptable for Westerners to ignore non-western history, but this view is now very out of date. Consider your own sources. Arnold and Love's books are both searchable through Google books, and you'll find that both of them contain a discussion of China's exploration efforts in their opening chapters. - SimonP (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, how come you make this assumption of multicultural historical revisionism? As SimonP explained, reference to relevant contemporary exploration is anything but helpful. In a chapter that came to be one of the most significant, even the first chapter of globalized interlinked world history. Not mentioning it would be, I'm afraid, inviting to the really far stretching views on the issue such as that of Gavin Menzies'.--Uxbona (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please notice that same sources you mentioned:

  • David Arnold: The Age of Discovery, 1400-1600- p.7 refers to it "Also Often, too, there was simply a lack of curiosity or the material incentives to motivate long journeys of discovery by land or by sea. China was a striking example of this. In 1400 its maritime technology was in many respects Europe's ..."
  • Ronald S. Love, Maritime exploration in the age of discovery, 1415-1800, Page xix "1405 The first of Zheng He's seven expeditions leaves China to impose Ming prestige in maritime Asia. 1406 Jacobus Angelus translates Ptolemy's Geography. 1410 Pierre d'Ailly writes Imago Mundi. 1415 Portuguese forces capture Ceuta. ..."
SimonP, you assert that it "provides useful background and context" but fail to explain why this should be so. I am glad that we agree that it was a European event which is the main point. As for Arnold and Love, the question is to we go by his book's general scope and explicit definition of the Age as an Eurocentric event or do we go by singling out single sentences or short cross-references? The relevant policy as to the inclusion of Zheng he seems here clearly to be WP:Undue: obviously we'd need much more than these random remarks to include such a major paragraph, based on so small a scholarly basis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma said "SimonP, you assert that it "provides useful background and context" but fail to explain why this should be so." So, here it is:
1) Because it was a relevant contemporary spring of exploration, as reaching China had been the aim of earlier medieval exploration like that of Marco Polo. And, even after Portuguese arrival in 1513, it was the aim of that of Willem Barentsz. 2) Gives background to chinese retreat in Haijin that, like Japanese Sakoku later, explains the reaction to Portuguese and other european maritime exploration and trade.
Characterising the age o exploration as an "eurocentric" event- even if it was radiating from Europe and fueled by Europeans- is to ignore it's worlwide scope and impact (kirishitan, red seal boats, nanban trade, Jesuit China Missions, european colonial empires, columbian exchange)... For a factual list of "pure" European exploration just go to Timeline of European exploration.--Uxbona (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Were Zheng He's voyages really "exploration"? I thought the voyages were all to places the Chinese already knew a great deal about. Weren't they mostly following long established trade routes? Wasn't the point to show dominance over existing trade routes, not discover wholly new routes? Isn't there a great difference between that and Columbus, Magellan, etc? Pfly (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, wasn't Marco Polo likewise following known trade routes--even if they may not have been known to Italians. Did he, personally, do any true exploration? I'm sure he brought back to Europe new information--to Europeans--about the world, but, similar to Zheng He, he wasn't striking out into the unknown without guide or pilot, was he? Perhaps this page would be better if the distinction between being guided along known routes vs. trailblazing into unknown regions without local guidance be made more clear? I'm sure there have been "trailblazers" among many civilizations, but by chance we have good documentation of the Europeans who did so during the so-called Age of Discovery--complete with names. The Polynesian culture clearly were explorers in the strong sense of the term, even if the names and details of the initial voyages are lost. Likewise the ancient discovery and colonization of Madagascar. I note that this page mentions Madagascar only in that Zheng He might, perhaps, have reached it, and that Cabral did so in 1501. Within Eurasia in general, from Zheng He to Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta, and many others, was not the geography basically known, and the "explorers" traveling with the aid of local guides? Even most of the European "Age of Discovery" explorers depended heavily on local guides--Cortés for example. It seems to me that "exploration" with the help of local guides and pilots is a far cry from some of the audacious risks taken by the likes of Columbus, Magellan, James Cook, Andrés de Urdaneta, Bering, and those unknown Polynesians. Still, my understanding is that the term "Age of Discovery" tends to refer to the European era circa 1400-1800. Certainly other cultures have had their own ages of discovery, and some background information about them might be useful for this page. However, it would be useful if a distinction was made between the "exploration" along known routes with local guides, such as done by Zheng He, Marco Polo, Cortés, etc, and "exploration" in the sense of striking out into the unknown without guides and little more than hope and perhaps a theory. The Europeans were not the only ones to undertake such risks, but they are the best documented and the term "Age of Discovery" tends to refer to the European era of exploration. Background information and reference to other cultures and eras would be useful, to be sure, but in context. It seems to me people are too quick celebrate people like Zheng He and Marco Polo as "explorers", forgetting folks like Urdaneta, who with little more than a hunch and without local guidance discovered the wind system that made the Manila galleon route feasible. What new trade route did Zheng He, Marco Polo, or Cortés discover? Pfly (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Uxbona, a Chinese navy following established trade routes in the Indian Ocean to the East African coast is relevant to the European age of discovery because it was the declared aim of European explorers to reach China from Europe? You will agree that makes mo sense at all, the protagonists are different, the routes are different, the aims are different, it is just mixing wildly together unrelated events. No European explorer ever knew about Zheng He nor was his knowledge, which was anyway destroyed by the maritime party at the Chinese court after his death, relevant to them as the missing link to India and China was the circumnavigation of Africa, not sailing in the Indian Ocean along age-old trade routes as Zheng He only did. This part of the sea lane was already well known by many other peoples with a longer and more distinguished history of seafaring and exploration like the Arabs. This is also corrobated by the fact that da Gama hired an Arab, not Chinese pilot in Malindi for the rest of the trip to India.
So, the waters west and south of Africa were explored by Europeans, while the waters east of it, the Indian Ocean, were known waters to many maritime cultures like the Arabs, Persians and Indians. Where should the Chinese come into play then? Nowhere, they played no role in the Age of Discovery and they have an article of their own, Chinese exploration. Calling Zheng He a "prelude" here is really covering up SYN and OR. What we can do is improving the article by a small paragraph on the existing trade network in the Indian Ocean since Greek and Arab times to which the Europeans connected (and where the late and epheremal Chinese voyages figured about very last). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It isn't SYN or OR, as all the references that you yourself presented mention Zheng as a prelude to the Age of Exploration. - SimonP (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see above. These references all explicitly call the age and events "European" and focus on this. It needs clearly more than a few passing remarks on Zheng He to demonstrate that his inclusion is not WP:undue weight. If you don't accept this view, at least recognize that more than 99% of contents of these books is not about Zheng He. From this it is only one step to recognize that WP article don't build their scope and contents based on 1% which is exactly what the WP policy undue weight asks for. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma and SimonP, considering this discussion I started a "Background" chapter- basically centered on geographical knowledge. Still needs improvement and refs, and note to Viking exploration... Help and improvement is welcome. Thanks--Uxbona (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Age of Discovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of Discovery. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Observation on world view[edit]

Something that this article does not really seem to address which, to me, seems valuable to at least touch on:

The article does touch on the fact that the Fall of Constantinople and the collapse of the Mongol Empire as giving impetus to Western Europe's explorations (to be honest this could be a little more clear). What is interesting to look at is that though the impulse to explore did reach as far as Christian Russia, this impulse did not extend so significantly to the nearby Ottomans nor did it extend much to the China, the Mughals, or any other empires in Eurasia (yes, some of these empires were expanding but they were not motivated to make the big discoveries that the Europeans were). It would be valuable to at least briefly discuss that fact a little and address why backward Western Europe was much more willing to pioneer exploration than all of these historically more advanced kingdoms.

-- MC

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of Discovery. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of Discovery. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)