History Template‑class

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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archaeology Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

If there is the Iron Age, the Bronze Age and a number of Stone Ages, that's not really a three age system. Just because it's made up of bits which themselves could be called ages doesn't mean the Stone Ages can't be an age. You can have a set of sets. JIMp _talk·cont 06:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a factor of the history of archaeology the Three-age system had a stone age before it was subdivided. Personally I would love to see the back of the whole system but it is still useful...PatHadley (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason the Mesolithic shouldn't be on this template? PatHadley (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all regions of the world had a Mesolithic period. But as it was a substantial phase in the prehistory of a large part of Europe, I think it was useful to add it, so I just did that. Bever (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already a template for historic periods, is there a strong argument that the historic periods need to stay on this template too? I'm in the process of improving a range of the prehistory articles and the template is useful but a little bulky. I'd love to trim off the historic bits and improve the prehistory section.... Anyone object PatHadley (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked at some of the 'big-picture' articles on which this template is used (such as Ancient History) and this context it is arguably quite useful to see the whole picture in one view. PatHadley (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let me say that the "Middle Ages" is much too Eurocentric to be used here, so I'm changing it to Postclassical Era. I think this is something we can all agree on, although if someone wants to argue it, be my guest.

Additionally, the subheading of "Modern history" called "Late" links to the same article, Modern history. This is an issue that I've seen in many articles and templates around the site, and I'd really like it if some could resolve it somehow. There needs to be a separate article for the time period between the Early modern period (around 1500 to 1750) and Contemporary history (around 1900 to present). Some suggestions for an existing article are Age of Revolutions or Industrial Revolution, but these periods would be a little forced in that situation. It may be necessary to create an entirely new article, although then someone would have to research for an accepted period name, so as to avoid original research.

InvaderCito (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]