|WikiProject Archaeology||(Rated Template-class)|
The detail in the box looks terrible. No order, very confusing. Obviously two schemes are being combined. I propose to return to the original scheme, which was a list of periods and dates. The attempted insertion of items in small font fails totally. For one thing, these are all given in the Three-age System box, where they are relevant. For another, they are not accurate here - this is a combination of apples and oranges, not one kind of thing. Let's stick to one kind of thing, the list of periods.Dave (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The end of the Lower Paleolithic marks the start of the Middle Paleolithic Age, right? Well, according to this the Lower Paleolithic Age ends 200,000 years after the start of the Middle Paleolithic Age. Chronology fail. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Could this box be converted into a (typical) horizontal bar to go at the end of an article? It takes up many centimetres of space down the right hand side, making image placement (document layout) a nightmare. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Until recently, stone tools were thought to have first appeared about 2.6 million years ago, but in May 2015, Harmand et al. found tools they dated to be 3.3 mililon years old. The article on the Lower Paleolithic states that the LP starts with the first stone tools about 3.3 mya, citing the article published in May 2015. The template still states 2.6 million years. The template and the article should agree. What is the consensus on the starting time of the Lower Paleolithic? Should we change the template to say that it started 3.3 mya?