Talk:Triangular trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pics and Maps[edit]

Two IP Users have recently traded comments and one revert concerning a new map depicting the triangular trade. I think that rather than brushing off new Good Faith contributions to the article, (1) we should be more inclusive, to a point of course. The IP user who reverted the latest map wrote in the summary that it was not an improvement over the previous one. I disagree. (2) I think this new map, though little in difference, is a bit better than the previous one because it shows a larger Atlantic Ocean. The previous one (similar to the one that follows second, below), focuses too much on the center of the Atlantic and this is historically inaccurate since the trade covered the entire Atlantic coast of Africa, and much of the Indian Ocean coast too. I plan to restore this map, not with the intention of starting an edit war, but because of the two reasons mentioned above. If any of you disagree or have views about, I welcome your voices, and I am all for reaching a consensus. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather than replacing one map for another, I left the twin maps on top (to the right), and moved the new one, with a broader view of the Atlantic, lower to the left. Let me know your thoughts. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the replacement of the map in the lead yesterday because the two maps that are there are similar -- they have red arrows of the same size and explanatory text in the map (although that probably violates the accessibility guideline). I think your solution works well. (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Thanks for the explanation and for your comments about how the pics are now. I do not mind if they are change as long as they make the article better. :) Caballero/Historiador (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Triangular trade. 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.

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi Guys,

After reviewing this article for a class I noticed that the entire first section has no works cited about the content provided. Secondly; the first, third, and sixth works cited links do not contain correct information regarding the content that is written. The sixth has a direct quote that cannot be corroborated by the link provided. Consider revising the linked content HybridGoku (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving of 12 year old discussions[edit]

An admin who has violated the WP:3RR ([1], [2], [3]) has demanded (in the edit summaries accompanying his three reverts in less than two hours) that I beg to archive 12 year old discussions on this talk page. He also doesn't like date-based archives, calling them "highly unorthodox". Is there anyone else who would like to see twelve year old discussions about versions of this article that are now twelve plus years old kept on the talk page so that people can argue about issues that others had with the article twelve years ago? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The 3RR guideline says: "An editor must not perform *more than* three reverts on a single page ..."; I have only performed three, so I have not violated it. Also, your user talk page is awfully large, far larger than is advised under the talk page guidelines, and full of stale discussions ... just saying ... Regarding the issue at hand, I strongly disagree not just with date-based archives what's a 2006 discussion doing in a page labelled "2015"?), but your remarkably eccentric approach that doesn't take into account the size of the page or the lack of activity on it. It may comply with a hyper-literal reading of the relevant guidelines, but it is not common practice at all; I know this, having edited Wikipedia for nearly 13 years and having done much archive cleanup over that time. Your spreading of your archiving approach all over Wikipedia with misleading edit summaries is not welcome on any page on my watchlist. [Also,] Compare this 2015 discussion about your archiving approach which I was involved in. Pinging PBS, who was also involved in that discussion. [Last,] Also, I aded pointers to this discussion at Help talk:Archiving a talk page and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Graham87 10:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Housekeeping edits for easy readability by me, revert if you object. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Small text
I strongly support archiving discussions older than one year. There's rarely any value to keeping old discussions on the talk page, they sometimes violate current guidelines, and they invite new responses. Personally, I'm not a big fan of archiving by date. When I set up auto-archiving, I set it based on the size of the archive, but that's nothing more than a personal preference. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
We love you Graham but ancient comments on a talk page should be archived. The style of archiving is not important. Johnuniq (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that old comments can be archived. I also agree that numbered archives are appropriate here. Yearly archives are only for very busy talk pages. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to set up numbered archives for all comments over a year old as a compromise. I don't think we'd need to restrict an archive bot to leaving a particular number of threads behind in this case (since most comments here are well over a year old), but I'm not hellbent on that. I was under the impression DanielPenfield and I had sorta agreed to disagree before ... I've reverted him without incident before ... but here we are. Graham87 01:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite User:Graham87. As we are all agreed that archiving is desirable, I've set up numbered archiving (which as Graham87 states is by far the most common; and I think is the most appropriate for low volume talk pages). The default is to leave the five sections with the most recent comments on the talk page no matter how old the sections. This is desirable for two reasons: (1) these are likely to be the most relevant and (2) it mean that there is a Table Of Contents (TOC). A TOC (a) helps neaten up the format and (b) encourages new users to add a section rather than placing their comments directly under the {{WikiProject}} banners. -- PBS (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; sounds good to me. Graham87 01:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


As one who has spent a lot of time studying Colonial America (Ph.D., bla bla) I would second the observation that there is no documentation of the definition, and would further point out that the series of sources listed at the end is from the nineteenth century. It's worth documenting the rise of a trope from earlier days, that people still remember and mention, but I doubt you will find any helpful documentation from the last couple of decades that supports this trope, because in recent times studies of the Colonial American period have tended to discount the idea of the 'triangle trade.' In fact, trade went every which way, and from everywhere up and down the North and South American Atlantic coasts, to many places in Europe and the Caribbean. It's less of a triangle than a Lissajous curve. Discussing it as a triangle is useful in survey courses because it provides an example of the Atlantic trade that's easy to remember, but it's reductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)