Template talk:History of Scotland

Observations
Some observations on this template. Is the word Chronologicy actually an English word? Using aggregator dictionaries/reference sites I've only found the word used in wikipedia Scottish articles and WP's mirror sites, and one use in French and one in German. Online Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries fail to locate the word. There are other words such as chronography or chronology that could be used. The title of the template makes it clear its about Scotland so shouldn't the list be consistant and omit the adjective Scottish i.e. why Scottish Reformation, Scottish Enlightenment, Timeline of Scottish history, Wars of Scottish Independence, Scottish colonization of the Americas, Scottish devolution, Scotland national football team, Natural history of Scotland when we already only use terms such as Prehistoric (timeline), During the Roman Empire, Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages without dropping in Scotland/Scottish. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed all round. Chronologicy does not exist on Wiktionary either. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also agreed on those points. We could use the simple "Eras", or something similar, in place of Chronologicy.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Eras works if, say, events such as Reformation and Enlightenment and Wars of independence which took place within a relatively short timescale were moved to the Topics section, and also Natural History re-positioned to immediately after Historiographical perspectives as a tidy up. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see the logic of where the topics are at the moment, but I guess a move is inevitable as this sort of article will tend to increase. I should also add that where possible we might remove "Scottish" from the headings, as that is implicit like history, as in "Scottish Reformation", its unlikely to be a general article. The template is very long and it could probably benefit from the shortening (even marginal) that these edits would produce.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Changed template according to above discussion to see how it looks. Anyone see any problems? --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely an improvement, but I did a little more pruning. I am happy for this to be reverted if anyone feels it loses the meaning.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

3.3 years later
The topic Dynasties and Regimes could be simplified using simply Rule. Only one regime anyway. Any thoughts? --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How time flies. It does stand out as a bit long. I can probably live with "Rule", but can we give it a couple of days in case something better comes to mind?--  SabreBD  (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot come up with anything better, despite a lot of racking with brains. Baring any objections, let's make the change.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Navigation box
I have modified the code based on the version used for.

By setting an optional parameter this template can now be used as a navigational footnote template. The parameter is bar=yes -- PBS (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)