Talk:Eighty Years' War (1566–1609)

Lede

This is a voluminous article with a 60 kB size. But it lacks a proper lede. I'll call the editor. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the editor did not answer :-) But your point is well-taken. I'll try to expand the lede. I am sure my draft will be edited, if others see things differently.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Eighty Years' War (1566–1609) → The first phase of the Eighty Years' War – The war continued up to 1648. This article deals with the events upto 1609. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion at Talk:Eighty Years' War - Personally I'd suggest Eighty Years' War (first phase 1566–1609) for this one, but some consistency is needed looking at all of the new forks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Merge with Dutch Revolt. Marjolein 't Hart, in Dutch Wars of Independence, writes: "[H]istorians who study the earlier decades - stopping in 1609 or even before - preferring 'Dutch Revolt', while works that include the last phases of the war tend to speak of 'the Eighty Years War'. . . For a while the term Eighty Years War was viewed as rather old-fashioned, but it has been revived by a recent internationalist perspective looking, for example, at the struggle from the viewpoint of the Spanish opponent or ... stressing the global character of the fighting." Srnec (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting point. Your suggestions imples tha there would be at least three articles: Eighty Years' War (for the whole conflict up to 1648), Dutch Revolt (for the first phase) and Eighty Years' War (1619–1648) (for the second phase). –Sietecolores (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Currently we have two articles that appear to be about exactly the same thing. They're not supposed to be—and they aren't quite—but your average reader will wonder what the difference is supposed to be. I don't have time to fix it, since both articles are long and the fix is probably not too easy. Splitting overlong articles is secondary to reconciling our two main articles. Srnec (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "The first phase of the Eighty Years' War" seems like very awkward language. NickCT (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment the current title is wrong, it makes it look like one war that was 45 years long called "Eighty Years' War" from 1566-1609, while there is another war also called "Eighty Year's War". So this article definitely needs to be renamed to something, as the current formulation is wrong and misleading. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Eighty Years' War during the period 1566–1609 -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Well the phrase "first phase" may look awkward. But the title surely needs to be fixed. Please suggest other appropriate titles. ( How about the word stage instead of phase) ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Options': Merge it so it's not split into multiple articles. Most obvious choice. If the other suggested merge works, try taht. Or rename Eighty Years' War during the period 1566–1609. Agree the "phase" wording is awkward, but that current name is just unacceptably misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 
• Oppose It's a rather convoluted title, I'm afraid. Yes, technically the current title could be construed as meaning that the war only lasted 1566-1609. But only for someone who doesn't actually click the link and reads the first sentence of the lead, ei a moron in a hurry. If the scope of the article is the parenthetical time period, the current title is as clear and concise as it needs to be. Peter ^Isotalo 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Move of the page history of this page was mismanaged

This article was originally part of an article I wrote years ago, entitled "Eighty Years' War" (see page history of that page). The powers that be decided that this article was too long and so split it up (see the archived discussion). But apparently when the split was done the so-called page history (history of previous contributions) was deleted (See the history section that only goes back to the date of the copy-and-paste). This is expressly forbidden under the Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves rules. My rights as an author have been violated. I want this addressed. I'll therefore put the banner mentioned in this Administrators article on this page.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added attribution for the page split, which fulfils all necessary requirements for pages that have been SPLIT. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)