Template talk:Human timeline

Active discussions
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Human Genetic History (Inactive) 
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Primates (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Homo idaltu appears to be in the wrong placeEdit

Homo idaltu which links to Homo sapiens idaltu is shown at the top of the timeline above Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens is omitted. The article on H. sapiens idaltu says they pre-date Neanderthals, so clearly something is cock-eyed about the timeline. Can someone with abit of expertise correct this? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Stub Mandrel: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - the issue may need clarification - seems the "predating..." and related quotes in the original lede of the Homo sapiens idaltu article may not be supported by the cited reference[1] - an earlier reference[2] in the lede may be better - as a result, more complete quotes may be as follows: "[The fossil findings] predate [sic? - see below] classic Neanderthals and lack their derived features ... are morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans ... represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans ... their anatomy and antiquity constitute strong evidence of modern-human emergence in Africa."[2] - the lede of the Homo idaltu article has now been updated - placement of Homo Idaltu in the {{Human timeline}} template, just before the "Modern humans" (or Homo sapiens sapiens, including Homo sapiens - wikilinked to Behavioral modernity) note in the timeline, seems justified since, as before, Homo sapiens idaltu "represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans"[2] - ALSO - seems Neanderthals "separated from the Homo sapiens lineage 600,000 years ago" (see Neanderthal) - the Homo sapiens idaltu fossil findings seem dated to the "post-" (not "pre-"?) time of "160,000" years ago instead [note: afaik - "pre-" *may* apply if "pre-" is understood as before the passing of the last Neanderthal (about 40,000 years ago?)] - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's still a mess. I think we should go with the most reliable source, and not quote the confused/confusing one directly, even if we think it's is good enough for some other material. Having a big "[sic?]" right in the middle of a quote in the lead makes it look like we're just inserting random nonsense into our pages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - there may be room for improvement - perhaps presenting your own exact suggested text and/or refs may help? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very WP:BOLD (and even have an anthro degree), but this is outside my area. It's needs to be corrected, not just copyedited, and I don't have the research materials on hand to be certain what the current (2016) scientific consensus is on this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - Comments Welcome - to help better resolve this issue - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done - Updated "Human timeline" as follows => "[ [Anatomically modern human|Homo sapiens]]" (from "[ [Homo sapiens idaltu|Homo idaltu]]") - AND - "-195,000" (from "-160,000") - per "Anatomically modern human" - the newly updated texts seem better established in the responsible scientific literature at the moment than their related texts in the earlier version - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Oldest human skulls found". BBC News Online. June 11, 2003. Retrieved June 8, 2016.
  2. ^ a b c White, Tim D.; Asfaw, B.; DeGusta, D.; Gilbert, H.; Richards, G. D.; Suwa, G.; Howell, F. C. (2003), "Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia", Nature, 423 (6491): 742–747, Bibcode:2003Natur.423..742W, doi:10.1038/nature01669, PMID 12802332

Templates (Human/Life/Nature timelines) and MOS:ACCESSEdit

Sorry for the late input but I did not notice this discussion at WP:VPT until the archive bot moved it. The subtle progressive color shifts are useless to those with color-impaired sight. To comply with the MOS may I suggest a 1-pixel border line of a highly contrasting color at each progression point. The border color will need to change at each progression point. Alternatively you could use alternating contrast colors for each time block but I think that would look really tacky. Please see Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts and of course MOS:ACCESS as well. Thank you. @Drbogdan:@Jonesey95: Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 12:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy and Jonesey95: Thank you for your comments re possible template modifications for better accessibility - presently unclear about your suggested modifications - perhaps presenting test examples of modified templates to the respective template sandboxes (ie, "Human timeline/sandbox"; "Life timeline/sandbox"; "Nature timeline/sandbox") may help - Comments Welcome by other editors of course - to reach "WP:CONSENSUS" - [NOTE: a related alternate possiblity? => maintain present versions for most (95.5%?) of viewers; wikilink to second color-adjusted versions for color-challenged (4.5%?) viewers] - ALSO - should note in this regard that, apparently, there may be ways of correcting for "color-blindness" (also see => "NIH ref") (for starters, please see "Enchroma" - as well as - "Google search") - ALSO - there may be apps, like the "CHROME APP for Color-blind viewers", to help color-impaired viewers better view webpages - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
We can't depend upon users to use the tools we think they should use, and we should just get it within accessibility limits. It's not going to hurt anything to have a subtle line between the color shifts. This will also help with limitation of hardware. I'm not colorblind at all, but in the "Life timeline" box to the right, there is barely any perceptible difference between the backgrounds of the "Multicellular organisms" and "Eukaryotes" segments, viewed on my (non-Retina) Apple monitor, and no visible difference at all on my older Dell laptop screen, but a perceptible one on my phone. In the "Nature timeline" there is insufficient contrast between the background and wording of the "Cosmic expansion" segment. We need to remember that these colors are optional, not essential. We would probably do well to reduce them all to much paler but juxtapositionally distinct colors.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Thank you for your comments - should note that the subtle difference in color between the "Eukaryotes" and "Multicellular organisms" sections in the "Template:Life timeline" was intentional - to present the very close association of the two biologies: after all, only "Eukaryotes" (and not "Prokaryotes") can become "Multicellular organisms" - ALSO - a somewhat subtle merging of colors from one timeline section to another seems more realistic - and suggests that actual transitions are likely a gradual merging from one section type to another, rather than otherwise - nonetheless - and as before - perhaps presenting your own test examples of modified templates in the respective template sandboxes (ie, "Human timeline/sandbox"; "Life timeline/sandbox"; "Nature timeline/sandbox") may help - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It may be intentional, but it's too subtle, if I can only notice it on 1 out of three devices. My to-do list is over-long right now, but if no else does this, ping me in a week, I may have time for some template demos. (It's not a matter of just slapping some colors in; it will need to be run through some colorblindness tests and such; accessibility compliance is real work, that I have a bit of pro experience with it, though it's not my focus.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done - adjusted colors to better view sections in the "Life timeline" template and sections/text in the "Nature timeline" template - hope these adjustments help - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Debian OS display?Edit

Some leftside nested text overlap in captioned frames and unreadable. Both on Web browser and Firefox ESR 45.4 both in Debian 8.6 [Note: comment by on 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)]

  Done - Thank you for your comments - all seems *completely* ok re the various timelines with my own browser programs, including the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox and more - using MS Windows and Android OS programs - seems presentations on less popular OS programs (like Debian) could be better? - nonetheless - related comments from other editors welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
All looks okay for me as a Debian/Firefox user a couple of years later. NB ESR releases of Firefox can be behind in terms of layout features, so that may be source of the problem. User:GKFXtalk 20:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Humans 300,000 years old?Edit

Recent news => humans evolved 300,000 years ago, much earlier than the 200,000 years ago thought previously?[1][2] - relevant discussions at the following => "Talk:Human#Humans much older than we thought" - AND - "Talk:Homo sapiens#News 300,000 years ago" - AND - "Talk:Anatomically modern human#Revisions to "earliest" dates?" - AND - "Talk:Jebel Irhoud#Humans 300,000 years old?" - AND - "Talk:Timeline of human evolution#Humans 300,000 years old?" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Humans exited Africa 270,000 years ago?Edit

Somewhat related - evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago, much earlier than the 70,000 years ago thought previously[3][4] - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


  • finding some interesting things about early stages of evolution ¥¥¥™¥¥¥ Malcolm180874 (talk)

Overlapping lines?Edit

In relation to this recent change, two other lines also wrap for me, resulting in cooking and clothing to appear on top of each other. Using nbsp fixes that but causes those lines to reach or exceed the template's right border. The font size appears to be 9px. Possibilities would be to use nbsp and 8px, to reduce the width of the yellow column, and/or expand the width of the template. —PaleoNeonate – 21:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Another possibility may be to remove "earliest" from those instances, which may even allow to reduce the template width... —PaleoNeonate – 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - regarding lines in the "Template:Human timeline" overlapping in some computer environments - for my part, all seems *entirely* ok with all my available pc environments - including Dell-desktop/Win10, Dell-desktop/WinXP, HP-laptop/WinXP, Acer-laptop/Win7, Toshiba-tablet/Android and using all available browsers (including Chrome/Firefox/MSIE) and at all available screen resolutions - these pc environments may cover "most used these days", I would think - my typical result is similar to the following screen images: "captured earlier" and "captured more recently" - no overlapping lines whatsoever were observed under any of these pc environments - perhaps best atm to wait for more comments from other editors - to better determine if the possible problem needs more attention - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a non-Windows/non-OSX environment, so possibly a fonts or fonts rendering difference (Freetype with Bitstream Vera Sans (+Mono as the fixed font)). The rendering must not be that far off other systems though, as the Gecko engine is ACID compliant and the font vector free-scaling... When I have more time to dedicate to it, I'll likely experiment with the template in a sandbox and link to it for opinions. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request re homo nalediEdit

You forgot to add the homo naledi to the evolution tree. Adding it wont be difficult. If any one would like to contact me, I'm theunintendedgeek @gmail.com TheUnintendedGeek (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


@TheUnintendedGeek and Jd22292: BRIEF Followup - the purpose of the "Human timeline" is to present notable, and settled, events (as far as is known at the moment) to the average reader - (please see the related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#Best wording") - the significance of the somewhat recent findings of "Homo naledi" is yet to be determined afaik atm - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request re odd imagesEdit

Page has been vandalized, please remove obscene photos. (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  Done - Thank you for your note - now "fixed" - however - affected transcluded pages may need to be refreshed with a "WP:PURGE" - if interested, please see related technical discussion at the following => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#HELP: Templates broken - need urgent attention?" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Separation" textEdit

I suppose it is standard terminology, but "Separation from gorillas" and "Separation from chimpanzees" is bothersome. Obviously it means when human ancestors split from those species, but some of our less than scientific friends could think, once again or still, that it means we descended from chimps. Please consider "Chimpanzee separation from common ancestor" or something similar. Thank you. Rocksnstars (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Tom Hoffelder

  Done - Yes - this was considered earlier - perhaps something like "Gorillas separate" and "Chimpanzees separate" (or, perhaps, "LCA-Gorilla separation" and "LCA-Chimpanzee separation") would be better? (template limits text) - Comments/Suggestions Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern speechEdit

Having an arrow pointing to "modern speech" on the timeline gives the impression that there is anything approaching a consensus on the date at which it developed. There is of course nothing in the fossil record that would given an indication; indeed, even setting a date for "anatomically modern vocal cords" would be contentious. As such, setting a date for the origin of speech can only be based on conjecture that is highly, highly speculative, and could easily be wrong by something on the order of a million years. I propose removing it. Meesher (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Meesher: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - yes - agreed - worth considering of course - the date on the "Human timeline" of the "origin of modern speech" is noted at 250,000 ya - which seems to be the middle of the interval of cited (albeit, speculated) dates - one up-side of retaining the note is to have a reasonable link to the "origin of speech" article - for viewers who may be interested in further details - and perhaps the best current studies about the subject - nonetheless - eliminating the note is possible - but let's first wait for other editors to comment - in any case - Thanks for your comments and suggestion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree this should be removed. Firstly what is "modern" speech and how do we distinguish it from any "ancient" speech which might have existed before it, and secondly there some linguists such as Daniel Everett who make a very good case that H. erectus most likely had language. Dating the origin of language is at its core a contentious and highly speculative topic as "speech" isn't something that can show up as easily in the archaeological record as clothes or fire etc, I don't think we should include it in this template. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  Done - @Filelakeshoe and Meesher: Thank you for your comments - the "modern speech" note that had been indicated at 250,000 ya has now been removed from the "Human timeline" template - if there may be some other suggested way (other than the "modern speech" terminology - which may be a bit contentious at the moment) to better link to the "Origin of speech#When did speech evolve?" section, then such a way may be a worthy consideration for the template I would think - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Timeline axisEdit

As the timeline axis is labeled "millions of years AGO" (emphasis mine), the numerals should be positive, not negative. I suggest either removing the negative signs, or changing the label to "millions of years from the present" or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambo102 (talkcontribs) 20:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Sambo102 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sambo102: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - seems this was somewhat discussed earlier with the "{{Life timeline}}" - see "Template talk:Life timeline#Axis scale" and "Template talk:Life timeline#Reverse order? Chronological?" - perhaps best for now to wait for comments about this from other editors - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  Done - @Sambo102: BRIEF Followup - decided to adj the timeline axis label by removing "ago" and more - so that the earlier "millions of years ago" is now "million years" instead - this seems better after all - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! :) Sambo102 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

H. sapiens merge?Edit

Also, I noticed that the part where Neanderthal used to be was merged into Heidelbegensis with Neanderthal as a small side section alongside H. sapiens sapiens. But isn't Heid. considered to be H. erectus usually and Neanderthalers to be a subspecies of H. sapien? So shouldn't Neanderthal be included as H. sapiens, or better yet put all 3 as H. sapiens? (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dbachmann and Sambo102: Thank you for your comments - the present view was contributed by "User:Dbachmann" (see "prev") and seems to be the present consensus of editors - however - a further discussion by other editors for "WP:CONSENSUS" may be possible - and perhaps worthy I would think - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019Edit

Change “Exit” from Africa to “Expansion” beyond Africa 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:BE (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion - the original text "Exit" seems better (than "Expansion") - and better fits the limited space in the template - however - comments from other Editors is Welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  Not done: per above DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

July 8 2020 @DrBogdan, in what way please do you think that "Exit" seems better? It can easily be misunderstood to strongly imply that the people who remained in Africa are NOT human. Whereas "Expansion beyond Africa" correctly implies that our entire species started in Africa, we are ALL originally from there, and it was from Africa that we launched our subsequent exploration and settlement of the rest of the world. The words you use to describe the same series of events thus have profoundly different implications for the people who remained in the human homeland rather than venturing abroad. On this basis may I ask you to please review your decision, and provide further support for what you mean by "better" if you decide not to change the word exit. 2001:1c00:1518:f700:d4f5:cf00:cbd7:a6e5 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Done - "Exit from Africa" - to => "Expansion beyond Africa" - maybe better after all - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Vertical text: rotate letters or not?Edit

Re: revert by @Drbogdan: There are two ways that vertical text can be presented:

Letters horizontal Letters rotated with text
Stretch: 0.1 em
Stretch 0.3 em
id 897230391 id 897812467

I prefer the second option since the word still looks roughly the same as usual, just rotated. I believe that the second option is also more common in professional typesetting. However as Drbogdan has queried this and reverted the change, I am posting this message to obtain consensus on the matter. In my original edit the words were stretched out by 0.3em; this probably wasn't helpful to legibility and either none or a more moderate figure of 0.1em looks nicer. User:GKFXtalk 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@GKFX: Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - as noted in my edit summary, the original (and current) long-standing text/format seems better for the "Human timeline" template - much easier to view and understand - however - In order to reach a "WP:CONSENSUS", Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2019Edit

To whom it may concern,

I wish to lengthen the timeline to go back to Proconsol as that I think was arguably the decisive step in Human evolution, when apes diverged from monkeys, also as the timeline stands it seems to suggest that apes didn't appear until about 10 million years ago. I wish also to update it to bring it more in line with your human evolution timeline, for instance getting rid of Nakalipithecus and replacing it with Pierolapithecus, as the latter's discovery along with Ouronopithecus suggests by that point that the human ancestors had shifted from Africa to Europe, where they remained until Sahelanthropus listed as having lived 13 million years ago as opposed to 10. I also wish to add Graecopithecus just bellow Sahelanthropus as it is two hundred thousand years older and a 2017 study referenced in your page on it suggests that it is an ancestor to Humans.

Hope you okay these, if you allow me to make some changes but not others I promise to only make the changes you allowed.

Thank you for your time.


Marin 2607:FEA8:A9DF:FD96:5AB:5986:B7CC:BCA5 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: @Marin - Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - unfortunately, extending the timeline from the present 10 mya scale to your proposed 25 mya scale (to include "Proconsul (mammal)") seems to compress the current template notes/text and, as a result, produces a distorted template of overlapping notes/text - incidently, on your proposed scale of 25 mya, seems "Pierolapithecus" (at 13 mya) need not replace "Nakalipithecus" (at 10 mya) since they both may be sufficiently spaced on the proposed template - also, seems "Sahelanthropus" appears to be noted as 7 mya on both the "Sahelanthropus" article as well as the "Timeline of human evolution#Hominidae" article (the 13 mya or 10 mya you noted does not seem to be supported in these articles) - "Graecopithecus" (at 7.2 mya) seems a worthy addition to the present template but, again, text overlap seems to occur on the present template - at the moment, the present template, as is, seems ok and is not distorted with text overlaps - also, the present template on the present 10 mya scale seems sufficiently useful re the known development of "human evolution" for most I would think - I'm inclined to leave well enough alone at the moment (templates can easily be broken when some modifications are attempted) - however - a newly created, but different, template (possibly as a sandbox test effort), based on your suggestions, may be worth a consideration, if you would like to make such an effort - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments/suggestions - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description in templateEdit

Hi, Drbogdan. In this edit you re-added a short description to the template which was removed in an earlier edit by UnitedStatesian. However, the result of having a short description in this template seems to be that every article that uses this template is having its own short description overriden with this "Hominin events for the last 10 million years" short description. Not sure if there's a way to keep a short description in this template without having it override all the short descriptions with articles that adopt it? --CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crocodilesareforwimps: Thank you for your comments - not clear about the concern, but decided to rem-out the short description - hope this helps in some way - please post if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the short description is showing up properly on the various articles that I checked now. Thanks. Maybe this helps clear it up: the short description is displayed on articles on the mobile app, and I have also enabled it on a desktop browser using Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper. Because of the short description field in the template, all files that used the template were showing the template's short description instead of the article's. --CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Crocodilesareforwimps: Excellent - Thanks for your response - and efforts - seems the solution using the "WP:INCLUDE" coding works ok - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - please see "Talk:Human#Short description", and related technical discussion at => "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Short description of template overrides article short description?" - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Human timeline" page.