This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

United States:History This template is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States This template is supported byWikiProject U.S. history. History This template is within the scope ofWikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject ofHistory on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory

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 onWikipedia: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 ofUnited States. The box atHistory 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 atAmerican Civil War) and/or a photo. If still needed, a link toHistory of the United States can still be in the same spot as the current table. --mav

Whatever.jengod

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?pbp14:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Should just merge the ethnic stuff under topics. –Illegitimate Barrister (talk •contribs),11:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perdiscussion at MOS:ACCESSBILITY, I have undone the overstyling.Frietjes (talk)14:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about changing this template listed here:WT:USA#Need to fix Template:History of the United States. —Naddruf (talk ~contribs)17:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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'stalk page or in adeletion review).

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

I propose mergingTemplate:History of the United States withTemplate:Periods in US history as a single sidebar.

Part ofa series on the
History of the United States
Timeline andPeriods Prehistoric andPre-colonial until 1607 Colonial period 1607–1765     1776–1789 American Revolution 1765–1783 Confederation Period 1783–1788     1789–1849 Federalist Era 1788–1801 Jeffersonian Era 1801–1817 Era of Good Feelings 1817–1825 Jacksonian Era 1825–1849     1849–1865 Civil War Era 1850–1865     1865–1918 Reconstruction Era 1865–1877 Gilded Age 1877–1895 Progressive Era 1896–1916     1918–1945 World War I 1917–1919 Roaring Twenties 1920–1929 Great Depression 1929–1941 World War II 1941–1945     1945–1964 Post-war Era 1945–1964     1964–1980 Civil Rights Era 1965–1980     1980–1991 Reagan Era 1981–1991     1991–2008 Post-Cold War Era 1991–2008     2008–present Modern Day 2008–present
By ethnicity African American Asian American Irish American Jewish American Mexican American Native Americans Polish American
By topic Antisemitism Civil rights Culture Demographics Economics Foreign policy Historiography Immigration Labor LGBT Medicine Military Music Religion Socialism Sports Southern By state Technology and industry Territory Unfree labor Women
United States portal
v t e

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 atWikipedia:Templates for discussion, but I've requested that the discussion be held here. —GoldRingChip23:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here

[edit]

I welcome your thoughts. —GoldRingChip19:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This seems common sense. Consolidation is good.Garuda28 (talk)01:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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? —GoldRingChip14:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Thank you, but while my proposal is clean and appealing, it's a bit too big, and the dates don't line up well. —GoldRingChip00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Concise + clean∼∼∼∼Eric0928Talk04:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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'stalk page or in adeletion review).

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 inTemplate:History of the United States sidebar/sandbox. It uses a new templatestyles pageTemplate: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)[reply]

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

The blue on red background is very hard to read. I'd suggestDipsacus fullonum's solution for the first entry but also to change in colors for the other section titles (or link them all to something and make their colors uniform and readable). Thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)14:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at various other "History of" templates, such as those forFrance,Italy, andCanada, it simply has the name of the country in standard black lettering on a white background. I think the same color scheme would be better here, instead of this peculiar black bar/stripe design with white letters—especially since black and white aren't even the national colors of the United States.Indefatigable2 ^talk02:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, obviously it will be black and white regardless, but in this case it'd just be the standard colors of text—instead of having this unusual black area at the top of the template box for whatever reason.Indefatigable2 ^talk02:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coloring looks good, and a better color may be a dark blue.Randy Kryn (talk)02:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the background color to #002868, matching the shade of blue used for thePolitical Divisions of the United States templateIndefatigable2 ^talk18:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the background of the list titles to red.Indefatigable2 ^talk19:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template-Class United States pages
• NA-importance United States pages
• Template-Class United States History pages
• NA-importance United States History pages
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Template-Class history pages
• NA-importance history pages
• WikiProject History articles