Talk:Timeline of English history

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Redirect[edit]

I suggest that this be returned to a redirect to Timeline of British history. The version presented here is full of items that are part of British History, but not English History, such as 802 Viking ransack monastery on Iona. Otherwise the article is purely duplicative and encourages unnecessary forking. --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the error about Iona - well spotted. I disagree about redirecting to Timeline of British history since England deserves to have its own timeline as much as any other country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of entitlement. See WP:COI: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. --06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Perhaps you misunderstand (perhaps through me not being clear) - I didn't mention 'entitlement', I am talking about having a common approach to articles. Countries often have Timeline articles, and it makes sense for England to have one as well. Someone wanting to find out about English history shouldn't have to 'work it out' by identifying the relevant bits from a Timeline of an island (Britain). An encyclopedia should be written with the needs of the user in mind. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was confused by the use of the word deserves. I agree that an encyclopedia should be written with the needs of the user in mind. When was the last time that England was not part of Great Britain? When should the timeline for England begin and end? Why is it more useful for the reader to have two nearly identical timelines? --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there an article Timeline of Quebec history as well as an article Timeline of Canadian history. The fact that Quebec is part of Canada should not mean that the Quebec article should not exist - it is more useful to have both as some readers may want to know about all of Canada whereas others may wish to know specifically about Quebec. Similarly, there is no reason why the articles Timeline of English history and a Timeline of British history can't both exist - it doesn't do any harm and for some readers will be more useful. As to the question about when a Timeline for England should begin and end: if the Timeline of French history can begin in 58BC, I don't see why England's timeline shouldn't start around then, if not even earlier! as for ending...it hasn't! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The harm is discussed at Wikipedia:Content forking. As to the Canada and Quebec timelines, the fallaciousness of such arguments is discussed at Wikipedia:Pokémon test. --Bejnar (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this comment has been up and unanswered for a long time, but to give you a succinct answer, the last time England was not part of Great Britain was April 30, 1707. The next day, the Act of Union of 1707 took effect, formally joining the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain (even though their crowns were united in 1603, they formally remained separate kingdoms until 1707). So England's independent history is about millennium longer than Great Britain's history. Paratrooper450 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hg 103.220.77.24 (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Salem witch trials included?[edit]

It seems odd to include these events when no other colonial events are included, and comparable events with England , such as Matthew Hopkins' depradations, are not mentioned. I suggest removing this. Intilektyule (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm aware that you wrote this well over 4 years ago now but I've taken your suggestion and removed the section about the Salem witch trials due to it being both unsourced and also pretty much unrelated to the timeline of England. DavGxyz (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]