Template talk:American political eras

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United 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 articles Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

The following form of the template (note, this is a cut and paste, not a transclusion) seems to me fundamentally misguided:

The treatment of the possible Sixth Party System is at best misleading; some, even of the limited number of scholars who use this scheme at all, deny that the 6th PS exists, either because the 5th continues or the party system has withered away. The remainder divides between it beginning in the 60's and in the 90's; one claims that the 6th Party System ended in 1994.

There are several other debateable decisions here; but it is a reminder that we really need articles on the Federalist Era and the Age of Jackson.

The right hand side, however, makes a useful draft template for the standard periodization; I will be taking it into user space for a while, as User:Pmanderson/Eras. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two DIFFERENT schemes in common use. The schema on the left (party systems) is widely used in the political science profession, and the scheme on the right is widely used in the history . profession. Users will need both, depending on where they are coming from. (Neither scheme is universally accepted, of course.) Rjensen 04:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were so, the proper course would be two templates, one for historical articles; one for pol. sci.; but I deny that the Party Systems are in common use in any discipline. 47 books mentioning the fifth party system may look impressive, until one considers the 714 mentioning New Deal coalition; and how many of those 47 are a single mention, in the page devoted to the idea? Some are false positives ("Fifth, party-system stability"); at least one is an isolated glossary entry. But do pick a page to argue this, and direct the others there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principal discussion on this seems to be in the 5th system article talk page. Anything with a question mark at the end is obviously inappropriate speculation and contrary to current wiki policy so have removed 6th party system references. Lycurgus (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is referring to this. --Wow (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed erroneous Seventh Party System snuck into this template. There is no significant use of a Seventh Party System in political science. Many academics are still split on whether the Sixth Party System really exists or if it's still Fifth Party System. The article written on Seventh Party System page is also rife with grammatical errors and opinions, and is not a neutral piece.2600:1702:4250:4C40:6080:91B5:7596:9C43 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]