Talk:Historiography of the United Kingdom

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

The organization of this is weird. Mostly, it seems to classify people by when they were writing. But Gardiner is listed in the section on the Stuarts, rather than on the Victorians. john k (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"weird" is an odd complaint. 19 out of 20 are in chronological order. the other one Gardiner can indeed go in the Victorian section but his importance is much clearer where it is. That's because he did not form or belong to a "school" as did most of the 19th-20th century scholars. Rjensen (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes any sense to include one historian with his subject matter, and everyone else by when they were writing, whether or not Gardiner was part of a school. john k (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historiography of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414213334/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00076791.asp to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/00076791.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban History

I have altered this paragraph, to correct some generalisations and having read the separate article on urban history. I am most familiar with the work of WG Hoskins and Malcolm Elliott on Leicester but I am sure there are equally good books on Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Glasgow etc. and books comparing two or more such cities. Spinney Hill (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC) None of these cities are small so I think "smaller" is better. It seems to me that there are 5 or 6 types of large cities in Britain historically:[reply]

a) London and possibly Edinburgh being capitals, banking and commercial centres and ports .

b)The great ports which expanded in the 18th and 19th centuries-- Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow,Hull, Cardiff, Belfast and Southampton

c) The great industrial centres which grew in those centuries-- Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford, Stoke on Trent

d) Manchester which is based more on trade than industry

e) the medieval centres which just grew more gradually with the aid of trade and industry,---Leicester, Nottingham ,Coventry and possibly Newcastle

f) possibly Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rochester/Chatham/ Gillingham which were intensely connected with the forces.

I think this whole paragraph needs some improvement. Can anyone assist?

Is history written by British historians about foreign cities within the scope of this article?. I am thinking of Jan Morris on Venice, but I am sure there are histories of Rome, Paris, New York, Kolkata and Sydney by British historians.