Template talk:Periods in English history

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

England This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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. History This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.

Gap

Shouldn't The Restoration be in this box too? Otherwise the time of Charles II is somewhat missed out. The precedent is set by the way the Regency is included, and indeed by the way that some of the other dates overlap. Any objections? – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I think the gap should be bridged.

Why does the template stop at Edward VII? Suggestions for continuation:

World War I 1914-18

Interwar period 1918-39

World War II 1939-45

Modern Britain 1945- (BartBassist (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Another way to bridge the gap from Edwardian or Great War to WWII:

Roaring Twenties (1920-1929)

Depression era (1929-1939)

I think that I'm going to change the template to the way that BartBassist mentioned. I don't think 4 years is enough to worry about what happened between Edwardian England and World War I. 99.142.51.86 (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain in particular, I think the Roaring Twenties apply more than they do in the US. Edwardian lasts technically to 1910, but can include up to Titanic (1912), WWI (1914), or the end of the Great War (1918), so I suppose you need to know where you end it to determine what comes after.80.101.113.45 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be: Periods in UK history, because we are talking about the UK not only England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.54.49.174 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan Era

It's missing... 75.4.148.110 (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source of the template, it's clear it was once present and was then removed by someone. I just took the liberty of restoring it. Shanegamer13 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tudor Period includes the Elizabethan Era. I'm changing the dates to reflect this.78.86.61.94 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No history from 1685 to 1714

That period has no pointer to an article. From a question on the ref desk just now: "There does not seem to be a universally accepted name for this period, though this site reasonably calls the period "The Glorious Revolution and Its Aftermath" (Marco polo). If anyone fancies trying to plug that gap. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical structure

This list is confusing because some time periods include others: you have "Stuart period (1603–1714)" but also "Jacobean era (1603–1625)", "Caroline era (1625–1649)", etc. Is there no way of indenting the subcategories? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to replace template

I would like to change the sidebar to reflect the concerns discussed above. Unless any issues are raised, I will replace the sidebar with the following one in a couple of weeks:

Hel-hama (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if this was a flat footer template as most people looking (for example) for the Tudor period are unlikely to be looking for the "Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II". Sidebars have to have a real justification for being there to allow navigation that is likely to be wanted immediately and I do not think that this one does.

BTW I don not think that the Interregnum is part of the Stuart era -- I think it is best described it is a separate republican period. -- PBS (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this (using {{Navbox}})

-- PBS (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the infobox title

In the infobox title, the word "Periods" currently links to Timeline of English history, but it might be better for it to link to Periodization instead, because that article answers questions many readers may be curious about, such as whether this particular list of eras has any official status (answer: no).

The two articles currently linked to in the title already link to each other anyway, so I think sacrificing one of them is acceptable. The words "English history" should either continue to link to History of England (the status quo) or else be re-linked to Timeline of English history, depending on which link is to be sacrificed.

101.103.163.241 (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template jumps shark: two periods running simultaneously?

Why have we sprouted two periods covering 1939-1945? Surely it's a single period, with things happening here, things happening there? If periods are not defined by time, but by time and location, then there are any number of additional "periods" we could shoehorn in. Rjensen, fancy telling us what you're up to? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant there are distinct military and civilian phases that in fact are covered by Wiki articles. This template is a guide to what actually exists here. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of English history articles. On your basis, we might add appropriatey named pointers to, say, War of the Roses or English Civil War or English Industrial Revolution or Decline of Empire ... I make these up as I go along, but you get the picture. They are as distinct as military history of WW2 versus homefront of WW2. They "exist here". In the absence of the definition of what is meant by a "Period in English history" - if it moves away from what might be called the traditional periods - Norman, Tudor, etc - then the template just turns into a subjective list of "we really should include this my favoured article". Whilst there are no articulated criteria for this list, and whilst single periods can arbitrarily be unpacked into multiple periods, then I remain of the opinion that your recent edits have broken this template. We link from the template to Periodization, which explains that this is about subdivision by time. If you have decided to move away from that, you might want to break the link and perhaps rename the template. {{Arbitrary list of favoured English history articles}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are two main articles on Britain in WW2--we should give them equal billing. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Really? Has no one suggested a UK WWII overview article, starting from

The World War II history of Britain can be considered in several ways. The "broad" approach emphasizes the interaction between otherwise strictly military events and strictly civilian events, to some extent at the expense of discussion in less detail; two "narrower" approaches are, respectively, the military and homefront / home-front history of Britain in World War II / home-front British history in World War II / World War II British history on the home front / World War II home-front British history, each attending to "its own" portion to provide the "story line", and making reference to the narrative the other is focused on ("the rest of the big picture") only at points where their intertwining is crucial to grasping the flow of events in the "front" that article focuses on.

   The expectation that there's a "best" narrative for covering a topic of this complexity is simply a hangover of juvenile fantasy. Articles can instead be split to facilitate readers making their own decisions about where to read in depth and where to settle for a short version. Think Choose Your Own Adventure, not Churchill.
--Jerzy•t 11:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)<br[reply]