Template talk:Czechoslovakia timeline

Okay, here it is more or less finished. Wasn't quite sure how to do the lil strip thingie for "not ceded by the GIE", and I didn't really reorient the text in the boxes to the new format, but this is the width, if not the exact length, that we're gonna get out of it. Do you like this better or worse than the horizontal orientation? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say horizontal is much better. Thanks for all the work though... now we know for sure. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've gone live, just one more niggling question. Should it be that thing displays collapsed by default, forcing the viewer to expand it only if they want to look at it? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... I spent about half an hour trying to make this thing autocollapse last night but couldn't figure out how. Great minds think alike - I'm surprised we didn't have another edit conflict. If you can do it, I'm sure people would appreciate it, since it's bigger than some of the articles in which it's included. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought we were done, but it seems the Navbox format we were using has been deprecated. We got a little unexpected "help" with the conversion, which I've reverted for now, but looking at those changes, I managed to figure out how collapsible tables might work. The only thing I can't figure out is how to keep "Government-in-Exile" from moving out of its box. Is it just my computer that's doing that, or do you see it too? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point now that its axes have been switched. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This now looks okay at 1042x768. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now seriously, looking over the debates, what was so wrong with the old design? The new one looks like something I would do, and that's saying something. :) It is confusing (and as such defies its purpose) and out of line with the vast majority of such templates which have the dates on the x-axis rather than y. As it looks now I would assume on first glance that CR was in the past subordinate somehow to Nazi Germany and that Subcarpathian Ruthenia is currently subordinate to AuH. Additionally, separating Sudetenland from the Czech lands is not a Good Thing™. You can have it separated 'inside' the Czech lands column/row (similar to 'Regions of Slovakia annexed by Hungary'), but Sudetenland cannot be on its own column/row equal in status with Slovakia and Ruthenia. +

I nicked the box from the post above me, but I've extended Czech lands to cover Sudetenland, split Slovakia into two rows so the south can be properly occupied by Hungary, the box for which I merged with the Hungarian occupation for Ruthenia. I've also moved Government in Exile to the bottom, there was no way to make that work with Sudetenland and I like the way it looks now, and I've recoloured the two non-annexed states during WW2 while leaving the annexed deep red. I would also not auto-collapse by code in the template but an an argument to the template, so on some articles like

t) 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Like those above, this looks fine on my screen right now, but I think the reason the axis was switched was because users reading at 640x480 will get a really distorted image. Try changing your resolution and see what happens. I agree though, the current template with time on the vertical axis is really confusing. The old one was more clear visually, but less clear in terms of links. I'm not sure what to do. Now that you mention it, you might be right that a separate category for the Sudetenland is a bad idea. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to cater to 640x480 any more? Most major websites are now stopping to work even at 800x600, let alone 640x480, and I can't imagine a browser running on a 640x480 machine would be able to display this correctly anyway, they are complex templates that I raped with my attempts at editing and barely display right on modern machines. (Any idea why Safari is showing the 'Sth Slovakia and Ruthenia' annexation box as part of the Ruthenia line only, as opposed to half Ruthenia and half Slovakia? What does MSIE show?). Also, don't some articles have pictures alone that are larger?

t) 05:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I should have said 600x800, but yes, it seems to be that way. For instance, the Periodic table template you linked to displays properly at 600x800. I don't like it much either, but it seems to be a rule. I suppose I can understand why. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and it scrolls just a little off on 800, though if we we want to keep all the information and clarity we currently have on the template I don't think 800 is possible. The horizontal one shows better, though it is even more confusing. I don't think the horizontal template is the solution here, but I can't really think of any others. Hmm. +

t) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, neither can I, aside from reverting to the old template, but that's no better than the current one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really thought we were done. If it wasn't better than the then-current (i.e. vertical) template, there's no cause to change it. I prefer about three revisions ago, the first actual change we made to the template page itself. I was happiest when the x-axis was time, and the "Sudetenland annexed by Nazi Germany" box was divided to show that the government in exile was the connection between the first and third republics. I see what you're getting at with this "nesting" idea, floating the Nazi puppet states on a sea of aquamarine government-in-exile, but the consequence is that bulky periwinkle slab running across the entire template.

The vertical orientation probably displays best on most every browser at most every size, so I understood why the main template got switched that way. But personally, as a user with a widescreen monitor, it was unnecessary (and actually makes the thing display oddly off-center). It also makes it a little hard for me to join in usefully into conversations about how this thing displays at really constricted pixel sizes, cause I kinda have to guess at all that by just "warping" the size of my window.

For these reasons I've reverted to a version I actually prefer less. To be honest, if we could find some way of getting the text for "never ceded by the GIE" to run on its side (vertically), connecting the first and Third Republics, I'd be perfectly happy with this version. It's a little weird, as far as time lines go, to have time as the y-axis, but then Czechoslovakia's "a little weird". Maybe it makes sense to focus on the constituent parts, rather than time, in this way. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're mainly happy with this inverse time template? The only reason I came here and started editing was because the template had me completely baffled, and if something designed to help navigate and clarify the Czechoslovak timeline gets this confusing I think we have a problem. +

t) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not. As I said, the horizontal orientation three revisions ago was the one that I preferred most. I don't particularly find it terribly confusing to switch the axes, so if that helped people with smaller screens, it was a thing I could live with. However, one thing I now note about Hexagon's changes that gives me some "hope for the horizontal" is that it's totally unaffected by the size of the window. All previous versions seen on this Talk page eventually break down if you make the window too narrow — including the vertical one. The worst that happens to Hexagon's is that you have to side-scroll to see it all. This, I think, makes Hex's design on the whole preferable. I'd propose that it be used as the basis for further revision. That said, there are still a number of issues that need to be resolved. For my money, the color's wrong, and I don't like the visual connotation that it's sort of only "half" of the World War II era. Bearing that in mind, here's a counter-proposal. One of the things I really like about this tinkering with your design is that it finally de-emphasizes the Ukrainian cells. and narrows the GIE line/bottom border. It also incorporates enough of the discussion in the following section to lead people to other articles. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this much better too, but the fact that it runs off screen to the right at lower resolutions might still be a problem. From my understanding, that's the only reason the axis was switched. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with this one, though, is that it compresses to a certain point and just holds its form. The earlier horizontal version actually becomes distorted at narrow widths. Try making your browser window a quarter of the width of your screen and see what happens. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this too, I just fits on 1024 and displays great on 1280 (both standard and widescreen), though it will simply scroll on lower resolutions. Users that don't wish to scroll can simply use the regular way to get there, no? I only recoloured the Protectorate and Slovak State to separate it from the areas clearly annexed to other nations. I also object to 'awarded'. Yes, awarded, but by Nazi Germany. I could just as well say that Kashmir was 'awarded' by Pakistan to itself, the term is just a sugar-coated euphemism that has for some reason survived up til now. It gives the wrong impression about the territory. Sudetenland falls much closer to 'awarded' as the west collaborated on its anexation. To avoid dispute we could just say 'to Hungary' and 'to Nazi Germany' on the boxes. Other than that I am all for this version. +

t) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I only changed the word to "awarded" because it at least partially incorporated the title of the article to which it was linked. One of the very first things that I objected to with this template (waayyyyyyy at the top of the page) was the the fact that "annexed by" led you to "First Vienna Award". It made no immediate sense. I kinda forgot about that objection as we focused on a variety of other things. But when I was looking back over the template in this round, I remembered it. I understand your emotional objections, but it's a factually accurate word isn't it? If the Vienna Award was the cause of the border shift, then the territory was, by definition, awarded. And there is a difference between Sudetenland and Czech Silesia on the one hand and S. Slovakia/Carpatho Ukraine on the other. One had Nazi tanks rolling in, taking the land by force, and putting it under direct German rule. The other had Germany, as the power broker, allowing the territories to go to other, albeit proxy, nations. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be fine with it abbreviated 'to X'? +

t) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not really, no. Again, I think someone we need to back up and look at this thing from the perspective of someone totally new to this area of knowledge. He or she wouldn't have any preconceptions about the topic. If they click on the words "awarded to" and got "First Vienna Award", I think they'd be less confused than if they clicked on "x" or "annexed by" or any other formulation. It's just a plain, simple, and, yes, ugly fact that that the official name for this thing is the "First Vienna Award". CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too happy but won't argue, I am OK with it. Can we replace the horizontal monstrosity now? :) +

t) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I quite like it and support the above version, but since it has the same issue as the last version, you may find your edit gets reverted before too long. =( - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have we not established consensus over this version? Any dissenting editors can come and talk it out here instead of just reverting. +

t) 04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, Munich Agreement needs to be mentioned. The victors of WW1 created Czechoslovakia, and regarding the Sudetenland, which was denied the right of self-determination, they rectified their error 2 decades later. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munich betrayal doesn't need to be mentioned in the timeline, there is a whole article about it. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you POV to yourself. Wiki is about facts. Munich Agreement was an international agreement, Czechoslovakian government was not invited as the Sudetenland was neither Czech nor Slovakian. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"international agreement" what a noble words ... Do you think it is still valid ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Czechoslovakia wasn't invited, because of the vicious policy of Nazi Germany and appeasing Western powers. Sudetenland became a part of Czechoslovakia after World War I and it was its integral part, deal with it. Many nations and ethnic groups were denied their right of self-determination, including the Sudeten Germans. So what? You cannot rewrite history and you will never do. - Darwinek (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked annexed, do you feel better? And this debate has nothing to do with this template, Matthead take your whinging elsewhere. +

t) 05:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There are lots of things that have been left out, but the idea is to list different states, not events in Czech history. The template doesn't need to link to the munich agreement because Sudetenland, Nazi Germany, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Slovak Republic (1939–1945), Carpatho-Ukraine, AND Czechoslovak government-in-exile all link to it already. Oh, and the Duchy of Teschen was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, just like everything else, no? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I linked Sudetenland's 'annexed' in the same way the Ruthenia's 'annexed' had been linked, and I don't think anyone was taking the Duchy suggestion seriously. +

t) 05:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would only add that the Munich Agreement is mentioned in — I think I'm right in saying — every article that the 1938-1945 cells link to. Of all the things I wish space would allow to be added to this template, the Agreement is not one of them. Parts of the discussion earlier on this page got me to eventually realize that the template did indeed need to be constrained to state (or state-like) entities. It's not a history of Czechoslovakia timeline; it's an "history of the Czechoslovak state" timeline. For this reason, there's an argument to be made for changing the name of the thing to avoid having this same discussion pop up again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmm, I got so focused on the text of this section, I missed the header. This might actually warrant some further consideration. In fact, Tulkolahten might be on to something here. 1918 only resulted in Bohemia and Moravia joining with Slovakia. The country didn't actually include Czech Silesia or Carpathian Ruthenia at that point. Neither of these areas were actually a part of Czechoslovakia under the provisional constitution of 1918, but came in to the state only in 1920. It does seem to suggest that perhaps the 1918-1920 period should be given its own cell, and that Czech Silesia should as well. Yes, the Duchy was Austrian, and Carpathian Ruthenia Hungarian, but their point of departure might be less relevant here than the time of their arrival. I'm loathe to return to fully editing this thing, but if it's factually missing a beat, we might have to. Another factor: most of Czech Silesia was actually annexed by Germany, too. I should point out, however, that the articles for the Duchy of Teschen and Czech Silesia are at odds about the date Silesia joined Czechoslovakia. One says 1920; the other, 1918. I can't see how it would be any sooner than 1939, because that's when the Treaty of Versailles was signed. I guess a good question to have answered is when did the changes mandated by the Treaty come into effect? So we need some research before just changing the template. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 07:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have meant 1919. And I oppose a Silesia box, why stop there, what's next - Moravia? Egerland? Northeastern County of Hradec Králové? The blanket term 'Czech lands' was supposed to cover it. +

t) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I did indeed. Thanks for correcting the typo :):) I think, though, that Silesia is a little bit more than just a part of a county, or a sliver of border land that got messed around with over time. It's one of the three main constituent parts of the Czech Republic. It (mostly) was not part of the Protectorate, and it was for a short while self-governing. Yeah it's a pain to consider putting it into the chart, but it deserves at least a bit of research. Maybe all that needs be done is just mention it in passing in the Sudetenland and First Republic cells. There's room. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the extent of its inclusion in your version above is sufficient (perhaps a little too much, Czech Silesia was part of what Hitler considered Sudetenland and there are no special provisions for it in the Munich treaty as far as I know). You can't really give in to Matthead's revisionist nonsense, he's not going to be happy until the template is renamed to 'History of Germany's southeast', he tried to get the

t) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, like I said, I was really arguing for greater research on the matter. If Czech Silesia wasn't treated separately from N. Bohemia and N. Moravia, then there isn't a need for a separate mention. I kinda was under the impression in my cursory look at the matter that Czech Silesia was brought into the Sudeten administrative district as a consequence of the annexation of N. Bohemia and N. Moravia. But if it's firmly part and parcel of the Sudetenland, as the Sudetenland article currently suggests, then you can safely revert the template to just say "Sudetenland".

As an aside, I read the name-change suggestion that Matthead advanced. I think you were right in your closure of it, and that it was all done according to standard Wikipedia conventions. But I thought his initial argument was well-intentioned and reasonably referenced. It was a good faith proposal, and, at least on the basis of that, he doesn't deserve to be so dismissed. I mean, that part of the world is a tricky place, as far as names go. I mean, the article for the river running from North Bohemia into the North Sea is called, simply, Elbe. Why isn't it called "Elbe-Labe"? The guy was just looking for a single name to call the article. Present-day maps of Czech/Slovak Republics often have German names under the Czech/Slovak names. I still know Aussig is Usti nad Labem, for example, and I have no real political stake in any naming war there. It's reasonable enough to suggest a third-party name with a long historical association over a complicated dual-local-language compromise. Again, though, I'm not saying you were wrong in the matter, but the suggestion was made, to my eyes, in good faith. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to judge editors so I won't point out other instances where I belive Matthead has demonstrated a remarkable inability to follow

t) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, if that's what the research bears out. I'm only saying that it appeared to me on a cursory examination that Sudetenland and Czech Silesia were implying two different things. Sudetenland seemed to say that, as a matter of course, Czech Silesia was part of Sudetenland. When I read Czech Silesia, I was left with the impression that it was administratively placed under the Reichsgau Sudetenland. I'm not sure if I'm making the distinction clear enough there, but basically, if it all came into the Reich in exactly the same way at the same time, then, yeah, make it simply "Sudetenland" in the template. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I think pre-WW2 Sudetenland was usually applied to Silesia and north Moravia, eg. the 1918 secessionist areas that wanted to join German Austria called themselves Deutscheböhmen in north Bohemia and Sudetenland in north Moravia/Silesia. (

t) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Rockreader (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC): Hi! I find the time on horizontal versions easier to read. Does that help you?[reply]

For the sake of storage, if no more, here's a version of the current template that includes some grid lines. Might be too confusing again, though. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table is missing a link to a general history page of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, or Czech lands or even more precisely Czechia (yes, really). I therefore suggest following changes: MrGreg (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I would also like to suggest colour changes, to denote and differentiate democratic, communist and nazi-occupation parts of history of Czechoslovakia. MrGreg (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden revert

@R9tgokunks: This change was for a whole month on this talk page without anyone protesting + the edit stayed without any change for a two months "live" ... I don't really get, why would you revert it now. Oh and since when is "just no." acceptable argument for making an edit?? ... Discuss before editing. Cheers. MrGreg (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed this in my edit summary. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where did you discuss colour changes? Where did you discuss missing link to article about general history of Czech lands/Czechia? Where did you discuss leaving only informal name for Slovakia and deleting informal name for Czech republic in brackets?? ... You did not. Yet you deleted it all. What a great approach. MrGreg (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrGreg: R9tgokunks has since been banned. While I agree with their contention regarding the use of Czechia, I saw nothing inherently wrong with your stylistic changes. Go ahead if you feel like returning to it. Jay D. Easy (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: not anymore, apparently. It was a 24-hour ban, and between the time I noticed the strikethrough in their username and when I posted this, the ban has been lifted. That's pretty funny, though. In any case, my point still stands. Jay D. Easy (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]