Template talk:History of the United States sidebar

Footer vs. sidebar
I would feel much better about this if it were a footer rather than a right-aligned box. I will change it myself in a few days if there are no complaints. --mav
 * Complainant here. :) We've been talking about this box and others on Article series and I think it fits with the other national history series boxes. Consistency is, yes, the hobgoblin of little minds, but I think it also pulls Wikipedia together nicely. Could you show us what you had in mind? jengod 22:24, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Like the footers on the country pages. See bottom of United States. The box at History of the United States is especially bad since it duplicates the section names - people should visit those sections first, read the summary if needed, and then, if they want more info, visit the main article on that section. Having the box at top also takes up very important real estate that would be better used by having a WikiProject table (like at American Civil War) and/or a photo. If still needed, a link to History of the United States can still be in the same spot as the current table.  --mav
 * Whatever. jengod

Topics
To keep this navbox simple and straightforward I think it would be better if the topics section were removed and only the "history of the United States" series kept. The topics are also linked in the bottom navbox US history which has more space.

Alternatively, perhaps inclusion criteria could be formed? I expect links to articles that are topical yet holistic in terms of time and place (at least in terms of contemporary U.S. territory), which would exclude links to the African American civil rights movement (1896-1968), the Civil War, and the South. These are important topics of course however there's also slavery, the Revolution, and the West that are similarly important yet omitted. African American history and women's history would be included.

I favor the simplicity of the first option. Does anyone have any opinions? Remove, clarify, none of the above? —Mrwojo (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image
The Great Seal is kind of dull as an image choice for this template. Could we possibly replace with something that might cast a little more color on US history? I was thinking of (a scaled-down version of) Washington Crossing the Delaware, as that is a pretty iconic moment in - and unmistakable depiction of - American history. --70.181.184.7 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic vs. Ethnicity
I kind of think that topics should appear before ethnicities in this template. I believe them to be more general and of more broad-based interest. Thoughts? p b  p  14:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mind, although perhaps it could be argued that it's "by topic" which is most general in scope (i.e. regardless of year or ethnicity), so should come last..? CsDix (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should just merge the ethnic stuff under topics. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Overstyling
per discussion at MOS:ACCESSBILITY, I have undone the overstyling. Frietjes (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:History of the United States → Template:US history sidebar – More concise and also consistent with US history, which is the bottom-of-page equivalent of this template. Both have History of the United States as their main heading/link, so using that as the name of this template but not the other seems arbitrary and potentially confusing. Since this template is based on a variant of Sidebar, it makes sense to indicate that in the title. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose to handling this as a stand-alone template as this is part of the set at Template:History of North America templates, Template:History of South America templates, Template:History of Africa templates, Template:History of Asia templates and Template:History of Europe templates. Also specifically oppose changing from "United States" to "US". --Gonnym (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point; I agree it doesn't make sense in the context of all the other templates. Withdrawing my request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion about changing this template
There is a discussion about changing this template listed here: WT:USA. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Merging templates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Merge. It's been a while and no dissents.

I propose merging Template:History of the United States with Template:Periods in US history as a single sidebar.

This is what it would look like. I've made no content changes other than merging the two together. I think there's no good reason to keep these as separate ideas, because the readers probably won't care about the difference. The dates do not line up exactly, and that's one problem. —GoldRingChip 14:46, 9 March 2021

''Cross-posted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, but I've requested that the discussion be held here. —GoldRingChip 23:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)''

Discussion here
I welcome your thoughts. —GoldRingChip 19:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This seems common sense. Consolidation is good. Garuda28 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, consolidation is good, and that's what this is about. Alas, I can't make the dates line up perfectly, but perhaps that a problem for another day? —GoldRingChip 14:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The way you outlay the template is a lot cleaner and appealing than before with the merging. You did well man, you got a yes from me on that matter. Bitsweet55 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but while my proposal is clean and appealing, it's a bit too big, and the dates don't line up well. —GoldRingChip 00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Concise + clean  04:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Link color for show/hide links
The links to hide and show and hide lists are now blue on red background which are hard to read. I think it has been that way since the collapsible content changed from being based on class collapsible to class mw-collapsible.

I propose to make link color white again. To do that a have made a suggestion in Template:History of the United States sidebar/sandbox. It uses a new templatestyles page Template:History of the United States sidebar/styles.css, and styles parameters and inline stiles are moved from the sidebar template to the templatestyles page. Besides the change of color of the show/hide links, the underlining of the links in the title and list titles are also changed to white when the mouse hovers over the links. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I see no objections, so I'll use sandbox version now. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)