Talk:Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347

Renaming
, I am more than happy for this to be retitled. I only created it two days ago and was struggling for a title which didn't become ridiculously long winded. Any suggestions? (English offensives 1345–1347? Hundred Years' War in France (1345–1347)?) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also found the title confusing, but I don't have a great suggestion that isn't awkwardly long. "1345–1347 English offensives in France"? "1345–1347 English offensives (Hundred Years' War)"? Is there no established historiographic name for this portion of the HYW? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to go for "Annus mirabilis", but there isn't really support for it in the sources. (Unlike my recent FA with the excellent name of Burnt Candlemas .) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "1345—1347 in the Hundred Years' War" would show that it's a narrow slice of a larger topic? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "1345–1347 during the Hundred Years' War"? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I think getting the year range out of parentheticals is the main issue, for me at least. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, do not just rename this article like that when there's also Hundred Years' War (1337–1360), Hundred Years' War (1369–1389), and Hundred Years' War (1415–1453). This should be consistent and approached more broadly then. Reywas92Talk 20:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is a good point Reywas92 makes. This title is in keeping with how several others dealing with just part of the war are titled. If we are going to change, we should change all of them consistently. Which would mean gaining quite a big consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a naming convention I haven't seen before and it does seem a little unintuitive, but it's also not something I would express any discontent with if it were kept. That said, however, compare it with how it might look with other titles—would "Queen Anne's War (1702–1703)" and "Queen Anne's War (1712–1713)" be apparent as two phases of one war, or two similarly named conflicts being disambiguated? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Random passerby comment: I would recommend just using a comma or a colon (preferably comma). So Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347, Hundred Years' War, 1337–1360, Hundred Years' War, 1369–1389, and Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453.  I think that makes it sufficiently clear that this is a specific time period and not a disambiguator for which Hundred Years War it was.  This style isn't uncommon - see Battle of Gettysburg, first day / Battle of Gettysburg, second day, for an example.   SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objections here, and with Gog mentioning he'd be fine with it on his talk page, I've gone ahead and moved the pages per the above to use a comma rather than parentheses. SnowFire (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Disciplinary regulations
There is evidence of the proclamation of disciplinary regulations in 1346, cf 1385. SN54129 17:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)