This good article article is both self contained and informative. It includes images and is well sourced according to WP standards. Havelock the DaneTalk 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, why those routes of note are called incense route, silk route etc. and not incense routes, silk routes, if this is the case? DSachan 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its more convenient to use "Silk Route" as a term which may mean many locations, sometimes many modern nation states fall under the boundaries of the same convenient term. That's for Silk Route (one entity one term), when we're talking specifically about "Trade routes" in general even the arteries within the Silk Route or the Roman India routes for that matter are covered using "routes." ([1][2] Press CTRL+F for "routes" using these Metropolitan Museum of Art links). Trade routes is a very broad term, and the routes themselves are rarely as well laid out for studies as the Grand Trunk Road or the Silk Route. In most cases we have an idea and a probable network and that's it. The use of "routes" is universally applicable to most cases, with names and definitions or without them. Havelock the DaneTalk 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples may include this and this. "Trade routes" is especially more useful since we're dealing with the subject of multiple routes, and their place in world system history, and not just one route or one entity. Havelock the DaneTalk 02:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That the article discusses multiple routes doesn't matter. Wikipedia uses the singular form. For example, cat discusses multiple types of cats, but the article is not called "cats". There are cases where the plural form is acceptable, but so far I'm not convinced that this is one of those cases. Pagrashtak 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to Rename as "Trade route". The examples you cited seem to be articles about many trade routes, as opposed to having articles on each trade route, and wikipedia is not like that. (although incidentally this doesn't talk much about the subject "trade route" but does talk about subject trade routes. --Keerllston 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, like the ones cited above, is about many trade routes as well. Havelock the DaneTalk 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what other papers are called—we must follow Wikipedia naming guidelines. If the sentence "This road is a trade route" is correct (as opposed to "Thus road is a trade routes") then the article should be called Trade route, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Pagrashtak 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other papers give us a solid idea of what we're looking for. If we take "This road is a trade route" example then we must also take the example that "XYZ is a Romance language" (note that the Romance language article is titled Romance languages). There are notable exceptions. Changing the title doesn't make any difference to the content and the change requires minimum effort. My concern is that by making such a change we will be publishing an article which does not follow prev examples and goes on to set its own, original one. Havelock the DaneTalk 12:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Romance languages is a language family, which is one of the listed exceptions. Trade routes is not a language family, so that has no bearing here. Are you seriously saying that titling this article "trade route" constitutes original research? Pagrashtak 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have prev examples ? Then why not cite them here ? Listen, The title of the essay is of little consequence, what matters is the actual content. If you still want to move it to "route" then get a few prev examples. I'll be glad to get this over with and improve the "FA" chances for the article that I worked so hard on and which stands to lose the FA nom based on the tiniest thing. Havelock the DaneTalk 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating yourself here when we have exceptions. You're suggesting a move without providing prev examples of such a title being used for an essay on the same subject elsewhere. Havelockдатчанин 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating myself because you keep asking the same question. To repeat yet again, I realize there are exceptions. This is not one of them. Essays are irrelevant, only Wikipedia policy. Pagrashtak 01:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try and cool down, I'm not your enemy and I have valid concerns. You think I would hurt the "FA" chances of an article for which I put in 50,470 bytes worth of cited effort if I didn't have them? I understand that you will stick to your guns when you say things like "Essays are irrelevant." The current title does not violate any WP policy and follows prev examples instead of setting its own original ones. Peace, Havelockдатчанин 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to cool down, I'm not upset. I looked back though the history and saw that this article was in fact located at trade route until you moved it last month, so I've reverted that move per Wikipedia naming conventions, as mentioned above. If you insist on pursuing this, I would suggest bringing this up at Wikipedia:Requested moves to get other opinions. Pagrashtak 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If unilateral move wars are the way to proceed here then I withdraw from this FA nomination. I urge the concerned authorities to kindly judge the article in its present stage as my involvement in this process is finished. With Regards, Hαvεlokбеседамансарда 18:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object[Mostly Outdated Comment--Keerllston 20:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)] [1b -Comprehensiveness] I like the way it's written - the images are mostly gorgeous, books are cited, it's very nice, and it is work on a vital subject.[reply]
Modern routes is tiny, has no main article, could turn huge,modern trade routes include the exremely notable Suez and Panama Canals.
Most of the articles is on "Historic Trade Routes" - I would suggest renaming the article that, and the category that, but I'm guessing you wouldn't like that "solution".
I really never give the "it will always need a lot of work to be comprehensive" line to anyone. Roman Roads, Suez Canal, Panama Canal, wagonways etc. sound good. Rail transportation is already covered but a {{Main|Rail Transport}} template, among others, may solve most of our problems. I'll get down to it soon and expand the article accordingly. I think that the reason why people went from one place to other was simply to trade, bring in stuff from other regions and eventually other cultures, and their frequented overland/maritime paths became known as trade routes. The Development_of_trade_routes section gives an idea on how arteries were developed for trade. Havelock the DaneTalk 08:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
haha, perhaps you don't give that line.
Why trade routes? Right- to trade, and they wanted to trade because? I mean, we're talking about across thousands of miles, across desert, across oceans. People don't suffer these hardships for little reason. Building Railroads, Highways, are expensive and difficult. Point is, This is mainly about various trade routes, and little about what it means to be a trade route. Current items in trade routes: oil, computers, drugs, diamonds, wheat. Things which are readily available in one place and in demand, scarce, in another. This is a rather important fact, and it is not quite noted. (currently it says "goods to reach distant markets")
Perhaps a section (perhaps "Definition") for defining what a trade route is exactly would help.
The development section does detail out some points regarding this, exemplified by lines such as: "Maritime trade began with safer coastal trade and evolved with the manipulation of the monsoon winds, soon resulting in trade crossing boundaries such as the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal." I think we can include specific links in the external link section for definitions etc. since the article covers short distance routes and local routes and makes it clear that "With productive developments in iron and bronze technologies, newer trade routes — dispensing innovations of civilizations — began to rise slowly." I'll get to work on the modern routes sections (my system just recovered from a major bug or something) and it would probably be a good idea to have subsections here (railways, wagonways, pipelines, highways, air, maritime etc.). Each providing info on major goods etc. Havelock the DaneTalk 12:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is covered by the first footnote and opening paras but I have done some massive expansion in order to address some concerns. The diffs are given here. 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Roman road system, wagonways, Panama canal and the Suez canal are in the article right now. The links can be accessed from within the section without using the potentially messy {{Main|XYZ}} tags. Havelock the DaneTalk 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support better than a lot of FAs. Excellent work. Perspicacite 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild object The Silk Route is probably the most famous of the historical trade routes, and is probably worth mentioning in the lead. I would also like to see the article refer to the canal networks of the 18th/19th centuries, and a brief mention of modern long-distance highways / air-trade. Bluap 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mention in the lede: "Historically, the period from 1500 BCE–1 CE saw the Western Asian, Mediterranean, Chinese and Indian societies develop major transportation networks for trade." The Silk Route was huge, as were the Incense Route and the Roman-India routes, but we can't mention every trade route from these civilizations in the lede (there are simply too many) so the best thing is to mention that these societies were in an advanced stage of trade route development and explain the astounding significance of these routes, including the fabled Silk Route, in later sections. Canal routes are in the article now. Havelock the DaneTalk 18:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I see canals mentioned are for the Suez and Panama canal. I still don't see any mention of canal networks as a predecessor to rail networks for long-distance inland transport of heavy goods. Bluap 19:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm talking about things such as 18th-century Russia having a nationwide canal system connecting the Baltic and Caspian seas via the Neva and Volga rivers. Bluap 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EB does mention Wagon-train migrations playing an essential role in an expanding America before the railroad and the article has been used as a source for "Wagon freighting was also essential to American growth until it was replaced by the railroad and the truck." but I'm not aware of canals as predecessors to rail networks for long-distance inland transport of heavy goods. Aren't they water based ? Havelock the DaneTalk 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Suez and the Panama are adequate examples of such routes. More can be found by just clicking the canals link. Havelock the DaneTalk 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that my problem is two-fold: 1) Both of these canals are relatively modern; 2) Both of these canals help to expand sea-based trade routes, as opposed to earlier canals, which helped to expand river-based trade routes, by linking rivers that flow in opposite directions. (Canals were also useful as local distribution networks, but that is outside the the scope of this article) Bluap 19:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I still feel that the article could have done without this expansion I've used EB to address raised concerns. Havelock the DaneTalk 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would always advise to go with your judgement, unless (of course) you judge your judgement to be worse. If you didn't think it was necessary you shouldn't have made the changes, stating that the objections were unreasonable and why they were unreasonable. I think it fits with the "Be Bold" policy.--Keerllston 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to user:Bluap if I appeared rude or appeared to be lacking in judgment. I'm still new here and am still learning the ropes, so to speak. All I wanted to say is that at 40,876 bytes we already had a long article and only the most necessary changes should now be made to it. There is room for more changes but if they are covered by an existing link then we should think twice before placing them. Right now we have the luxury of thinking twice but still going ahead and placing the edit since the article is large but not prohibitively so. Once again, my apologies for any inappropriate wording on my part. Havelock the DaneTalk 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object to ignoring the whole Western Hemisphere. Canals were very important in the development of the U.S. and still are. First mass transportation was water-based in U.S. U.S. was discovered and explored through waterways. Railroads were not built until the 1800s. Just look at a map and see where the cities are. Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 mainly to obtain the Mississippi River System and New Orleans. See Missouri River. If you look at List of canals in the United States you will see they are important even today. The Erie Canal was extremely important when it was built. and what about all these in Category:Intracoastal Waterway still vital today. And Gulf of Mexico is a major transportation route. (And this is just the tip of the iceberg.) Mattisse 00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NB: the above comment by Mattisse was moved by myself (Bluap), since the original positioning of the comment made it look as if Havelock the Dane was responding to Matisse's comment, rather than my own. Bluap 02:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the comprehensiveness issues so far. I'm pretty much willing to support, but what about mentioning the historic and modern environmental impact of trade routes? Historically of course, the impact is usually limited to the actual path of the route. But in modern times, with the mass shipping of commercial goods being a significant contributor in greenhouse gas emissions, it really is a global issue. Anyway, I don't need a whole new section, but at least a few sentences on environmental impact issues are necessary. VanTuckyTalk 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to it soon. If I don't log in unexpectedly then its my PC acting up again in which case my edits might take a day longer. Havelock the DaneTalk 06:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good work. Another factor I just thought of: is there a general mention of the fact that trade routes have encouraged - and in some cases, been nearly the sole contributing factor - in the creation, growth and decline of many towns and cities? This is a factor in all the eras covered, so I doubt it needs to be said in each; just an overview statement would be good. VanTuckyTalk 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. Sorry for the delays, my computer freezes up and I'm told that I'll have to format the HDD since a lot of my files have been corrupted (virus). It's hard and frustrating and tends to delay things until I find a way to solve it without losing my data, however corrupted it may be. Havelockдатчанин 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dothese edits highlight the trade_routes/urban_civilization connection adequately? Havelockдатчанин 02:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objections -[1a, 1b] Still more on specific trade routes than on the topic of "the trade route(s)" The Section "Historic Trade Routes" is divided mostly by specific route(s) and Section "Modern Routes" is only divided by Type of Transportation. - the article should be consistent. Free Trade area does not fit in Modern Routes, the trade routes inside those Free Trade Areas are. - These might be railroads or highways or seaways/oceanways. The section "Development of Trade Routes" is too small - how about the development of transportation through land - wagonway/dirtpath to railroad/highway, coastal barques to steam ships to ocean oil tankers, development of containers, a note on the simultaneous development of ports/markets, a note on pirating/security on routes. --Keerllston 21:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a very well thought out to-do list. I'll try to address those concerns as soon as possible. With Regards, Hαvεlokбеседамансарда 00:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Consistency: We now have Combined land and waterway routes, Predominantly overland routes and Predominantly maritime routes in the "Historic trade routes" section while the "Modern routes" section has Wagonway routes, Railway routes, Modern road networks, Modern maritime routes, Free Trade Areas, Air routes and Pipeline networks. * Diffs.
2. Free Trade Areas: The pointing out of specific routes for FTAs is a bit of a problem. The amount of commodities crossing borders depends upon the degree of production (and demand) of exempted goods and the financial status of the producer, which would dictate how he would choose to send those goods across the other side. The modern FTA treaties allow most channels available for exempted goods, so a series of pathways and stoppages for the commercial transport of cargo is formed – with relaxed restrictions on goods – which exists only for partner nations, not for others. These treaties result in opening up of regular travel/transportation routes as newfound international trade routes as finished goods now travel freely along the same arteries which previously restricted them.
3. Development of trade routes: Actually, that section was intended to be the "prehistory of trade routes" sort of thing, and the title, admittedly, was confusing. I have renamed it to "Development of early routes" so that it touches on the points highlighting only the early development.
4. A note on the simultaneous development of ports/market: Kindly see if this edit address the concerns adequately.
5. A note on pirating/security on routes: Kindly see if these edits address the concerns adequately.
Consistency/Comprehensiveness is still a problem. The Modern Times holds no routes for specific products.
I am not comfortable with Historic Routes, the Spice route for example stopped being maily land-route and became prevalently a water-route ca. 1500 ACE. The split between pre-1900 and then post-1900 is somewhat unsatisfactory.
Missing Routed: Sugar Trade/Smuggling in the Americas- also of Cotton, Coffee, Tobacco, Cocoa, Natural Rubber.
Notion of Manufactured goods is lacking. This is very important in terms of the routes
England became a major exporter of clothing because of the industrial revolution.
The US exports everything it exports through routes, and imports everything it imports through routes.
I note the Free Trade Zones argument - should then talk about Mercantilism and what it meant in terms of routes - especially the Spanish Empire/Kingdom.
Nice work- I assure you it's not in vain, even if this doesn't get FA status this time- some articles need a lot more work and information than others to be comprehensive.
OpposeImage:Inca-roads-map.png, Image:Transasia trade routes 1stC CE gr2.png (has some information on area names, but no verification that lines on the map are taken from a scholarly source), Image:Rota do âmbar.jpg, Image:Ancient Levant routes.png, and those are just the ones I check all need sources to show that the information on the map represents verifiable scholarly data. Image:Tuareg area.png has sources but they are only author names and years... full bibliographic information (including page numbers) needs to be on the images too since the article may change. Images need to be as well cited as article text. grenグレン 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
