Template talk:Czechoslovakia timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Slovakia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Wrong

I do not know whether you are 5 years old or what, but this template is completely factually WRONG. IT CANNOT BE USED....You would get 10 times a "5" in any elementary school for this... INCREDIBLE!Juro 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Juro, insulting and destroying is not the way to work, alas you keep on going to re-revert. What to do? Is there anyone to help? Wiki-vr 12:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

It's clear the horizontal axis represents time, but what does the vertical axis represent? There appear to be multiple overlapping attributes, and it's a little hard to parse. It would be good if both axis were labelled. -- Beland 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with the above comment. This template is awfully confusing. The vertical axis is a problem as noted above, but it goes a bit deeper than that. The template uses names that don't match the names of the articles they link to. For instance, it calls the first republic Czechsolovak Republic. In the template that links to History of Czechoslovakia (1918–1938). However, when actually link to the words Czechoslovak Republic, you go to Czechoslovakia, an overview of all entities called "Czechoslovakia". Shouldn't the template really use the phrase First Republic of Czechoslovakia? Likewise the template implies that the second appearance of "Upper Hungary" links to a different article (by use of the word "further"), but both links point to (confusingly) First Vienna Award. The template also suggests that the second Czechoslovak Republic will tell them about the period 1945-1960, but in reality it only links to an article about 1945-1948. A better solution might be something like:
As for the "vertical axis issue", it would be helpful the rows were organized thus:

CzechOut | 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is confusing and needs to be fixed. I think the problem is mainly one of focus. The Template:History of Czechoslovakia already lists the "History of Czechoslovakia (xxxx-xxxx)" articles (as well as the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia article) in chronological order. This template, however, is (IMHO) supposed to show a chronology of all the state/region articles like Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Czech Socialist Republic, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, Zakarpattia Oblast, etc. The problem with this latter list, is that wikipedia doesn't have the articles necessary to complete it. For instance, there aren't separate articles on the separate First, Second, or Third Republics. Because those articles were/are missing, they've been linked to the "History of Czechoslovakia" articles, creating confusion. I can imagine the vertical axis like you suggest, but along an extra top row, include all the (History of Cz) articles to show chronology. Under each of those columns, list the states as they may have existed at that time. If no article exists, don't link it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

other languages

cs:Template:Cs-timeline de:Template:Cs-timeline sk:Template:Cs-timeline

Suggestion?

I know this isn't perfect, but I tried to incorporate what you said CzechOut. Let me know what you think and how it can be improved. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sudetenland was NOT annexed by USSR :-) Also, I don't think anyway ever uses "the third republic", and the previous two are also rather informal. And I quite liked the old table's differing colours (as well as a mention of the exile govt)... --Malyctenar (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it from your first comment that keeping various territories (sudetenland/upper hungary/carpat.ruth) in the same row is confusing? The numbered republics are informal, but i'm not sure how else to phrase it. Third Republic is at least used by the Library of Congress. The exile gov't would be good, and I wouldn't oppose including it, if you can fit it in nicely... especially if someone were to write an actual article on the cz gov't in exile, and their role during the war. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Heh, at the same time you were working on your version, I was working on mine. I quite prefer your X-axis (being done by date), and I like the flexibility of your grid box widths. However, I'm not sure your box really solves the Y-axis problem. Here's my suggestion on that score:
I think what we should do is sort of blend our two approaches together, preserving your x-axis, my y-axis, and some of my greater number of links. I also think each row should be a different color (or a different shade of the same color) for easier reading.
Whatcha think? CzechOut | 08:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is unbearably huge. --Malyctenar (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that its formatting can use work, but it's not meant to be cosmetically perfect at this stage. It was just a quick and dirty way to represent the relative location of the various links proposed to be included in the template. Stylistically, the disadvantage of the way I've approached things here is that there's precious little control over the size of the individual grid parts. The real question at this stage is what exactly should be included in the template and how it should be basically organized. If the structure is agreed we can go to work on more precise coding that will allow for a more compact format. CzechOut | 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we we combine your y-axis with my x-axis would be great. I think the less items in the x-axis the better. There is no corresponding "state" for the czech coup, or the velvet revolution (not velvet divorce, which I guess was an accident?) which results in so many blank spaces on your template. In cases where certain regions are united, I don't think it's worth merging the rows. I guess I'm not sure the "czechoslovakia" row in your template is a good idea. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It also fails to include Upper Hungary... ? Do we include that under the Slovak row? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Arrgh, we've done it again :) We're both typing at the same time, responding to the last post we made :) Here are my thoughts on your comments from the 7th:
"Upper Hungary" is a bit of an invented name, as evidenced by the fact that the link in both the original template and your suggestion is actually to First Vienna Award. Also, one man's "Upper Hungary" is another man's "Lower Slovakia and Transcarpathia". Trying to name these areas is difficult and inevitably shows bias. Best that the links are made to the article name, and point where possible to the place in the article of greatest relevance, I feel. Unfortunately, this is one area that applies to both Slovakia and Transcarpathia, so it's listed twice. But if we transposed Transcarpathia and Sudentland, maybe there's a way that a single link could vertically straddle both rows. However, this is probably unsatisfactory, as different things happened to the two areas during the war, and it's only the First Vienna Arbitration that they share. Listing the same thing twice may be inevitable.
As for the "Czecoslovakia" row, I'm kind of torn. I think your blue-shaded time-line row is awfully elegant and should be preserved. However, I still think there are enough links to Czechoslovak institutions directly underneath that row to allow for there to be a "Czechoslovak row". In fact, I think it might make the visual point quite dramatically for there to be a space of a different color on the "Czechoslovak row" under the 1939-45 heading. In this space we could put Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany: Second Republic and Government in Exile (or somesuch) so that its a bit clearer what happened to Czechslovakia as an entity during the war. Continuity for the government of Czechoslovakia, after all, runs through England during the war. I also think it highly appropriate to include links to Czech coup and, as you rightly pointed out, Velvet Revolution. These are hugely important dates on any timeline of Czechoslovakia, as evidenced by the fact that they have their own articles amidst other articles covering greater periods of time. Hence:
I'm still a little wary of the 1948-1989 category. Yes, it matches an article that's already written. But in strict point of fact, the 1948-1960 regime is different than the 1960-1968 one, which is different yet again from the 1968-1990 one. In point of constitutional law, there was a clearly different Czechoslovakia from 1920-1948, 1948-1960, 1960-1968, and 1968-1990 (see Ninth-of-May Constitution, 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia, Constitutional Law of Federation)

CzechOut | 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... I'm not a big fan of mixing "history" articles with these "state" articles. I'd rather have the history sidebar expanded than try to include that stuff here. I think this template is mostly just necessary to show the legal status of the regions over time. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. And I suppose I'm willing to let go of Velvet Revolution and Czech coup. But my question, to which I don't necessarily have an answer, is whether it wouldn't be better to at least follow the legal status by changes in the constitution? To my eye, there are at least three different Czechoslovakias in that 1948-89 period. One from 1945-1948 (the actual Third Republic of Czechoslovakia), one from 1948-1960, under the Ninth-of-May Constitution (which isn't yet the CSSR), and one under the 1960 constitution (which is). In other words, I think the 1948-1989 period needs to have two Czechoslovakias underneath it, and the dates on the Third Republic need to be contracted to 1945-48. Problem is, though, there's not really an article on the 1948-60 Czechoslovakia. CzechOut | 05:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

attempt to merge ideas with CzechOut's template

Does this make it clearer? I've linked "Slovakia" in the left column to History of Slovakia rather than the modern state article. Please, let me know your thoughts. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do like this much better. This at least parses both vertically and horizontally. I get why you say we don't need a "Czechoslovakia" line with this one; the vertical axis makes that all pretty clear. However, I'm still worried about a bit of phraseology (see "Upper Hungary" stuff in my last note). I'm not quite sure how you'd graphically represent the government in exile here (somehow it'd have to straddle all four points on the y-axis), while suggesting some sort of co-existence with the other stuff already there. Also, I would tend to move Carpatho-Ukraine to the Carpathian line because it declared independence from Czechoslovakia, and yet was annexed by Hungary, on pretty much the same day in 1939 (March 15). And I remain skeptical about a single point on the x-axis for 1948-1990. But conceptually I definitely think we're there. CzechOut | 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my previous edit acknowledges carpatho-ukraine independence properly, though I guess dates should be added. Did the Czechoslovak gov't in exile make claim to carpathro-ukraine & the sudenland or not? I'm not clear on this point. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, we're in a muddy period in a muddy part of the world. Unlike the Czech borders, Slovak borders with Hungary were never particularly well-defined. This had to with the fact that it was all pretty much territory belonging to the Crown of St. Stephen, prior to Woodrow Wilson comin' in after World War I to carve up the Austro-Hungarian Empire. All of a sudden it very much mattered where the line was drawn, but there wasn't any history on which to base the line-drawing. So all these bigwigs cogitate over the problem, and decide that the main basis for drawing the southern border should be, basically, an east-west communication line between Prague the easternmost extents of Czechoslovakia. This means that a lot of ethnically Hungarian areas were integrated into Slovakia by way of the Treaty of Trianon. Hungarians, remembering this, used the by-then-historical 1910 census to sorta put some spin on their claim. By 1938, the 1910 census wasn't, after all, terribly true anymore.
And you have a confusing picture in 1938. In October, Edvard Beneš resigns as president of Czechoslovakia and flees to London. He's succeeded by Emil Hácha, who is at first the legitimate president of Czechoslovakia, under the 1920 Constitution. The First Vienna Arbitration happens in November, and Hácha reluctantly signs off on it. But he doesn't become an actual puppet of Hitler until March of 1939, when the Protectorate is actually formed and he's forced to swear fealty to Hitler. It is a matter of some debate whether Hácha could have acted in a different way prior to March 1939 to stop Nazi aims.
Benes, meanwhile, doesn't set up the government-in-exile until 1939, by which time the secession of the southern Kosice region and Transcarpathia has already happened. The government-in-exile's demands are consistent with Benes' policies whilst Foreign Minister: preservation of the Treaty of Trianon, as expresssed by the policy of Little Entente. But, having spent so many years as a star in the circles of diplomacy, Benes knows that some flexibility is always required. So what the government in exile demands is that the basic contours of Czechoslovakia in 1937 should be preserved, and that the League of Nations should back them up on this, in principal. However, he doesn't ask for any precise borders with respect to Slovakia and Trans-Carpathia. Czech military units still in Trans-Carpathia in early 1939, forced to make a decision by the Slovak-Hungarian War, decide to defend against Hungarian incursion.
So, after all that, I'm not sure I've got a solid answer to your question. Hácha, as the not-yet-puppet of Germany, cedes Trans-Carpathia, but isn't happy about it, and possibly believes a minimum of bloodshed today will restore the old borders of Czechoslovakia tomorrow. Benes, in London after the fact, calls for the restoration of 1937 borders, but without specificity. And ordinary Czech troops on the ground in the Carpathian Rus, do fight against Hungary, but no reinforcements are sent from Prague (and most of 'em end up as POWs anyway). Maybe the best way of looking at it is that it wasn't really worth fighting over, but it was something that would be broached diplomatically, if the post-war conditions allowed for it. Thus, at the end of the day, you get diplomatic success over the general return of 1937 borders of the "southern Kosice region" and the Sudetenland, but no great outcry over the loss of the Carpathian Rus. It was, after all, an extremely poor region of at best moderate strategic and economic importance. Thus, Benes did ultimately cede the Carpathian Rus to the Russians as an attempt to stop Soviet ambitions further westward into Czech or Slovak lands. When push came to shove, Benes ultimately wasn't that attached to trans-Carpathia. (Take a look here for contextualization of the confusing Slovak-Carpathian Rus border issues) CzechOut | 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And as for "Upper Hungary" -- it was Hungary's after it was annexed, and so it makes sense to go with what they called it, no? I don't think Slovaks called it (or do call it) lower Slovakia... I don't know of a Slovak name for it. Unfortunately, many Hungarians still call it felvidek. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would venture to say, "no". Slovaks definitely have a word for it: the southern half of the Košice Region, including the capital, Košice itself. Today, Košice is the seat of the Slovak judiciary, and therefore an effective co-capital of Slovakia. In terms of population, Košice is Slovakia's second city. This isn't random countryside. Slovaks, supported by some Czechs, fought the Slovak-Hungarian War over a widening of Hungarian claims on Slovak land that bordered on that Carpathian Ruthenian grant by the First Vienna Award.
Another point: the Upper Hungary article makes it pretty clear that the term shows bias. I suppose I wouldn't mind its inclusion in this table if we did something even-handed, but it would be awfully wordy, and probably warp the grid to do it:
WWII Slovak Republic
(1939–1945)
"Upper Hungary"
(about half of the Košice Region)
annexed by Hungary
by the First Vienna Award
and the Slovak-Hungarian War

CzechOut | 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's biased, but in my experience, Czechs don't tend to approve of the term sudetenland either, and we're still using that. Anyway, hopefully my recent edit solves that problem. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


I've tried to respond to your various points throughout this page today, so make sure you give a good hunt for the red, white and blue :) But, if I can sorta summarize:

  • Overall, the template's looking great. It reads soooooo much better than it did
  • We still need to do something for the government-in-exile. It's not optional, as it was the government the Allies recognized during the war. It should probably be a different colored background than the other points on the grid, just to clearly identify it as something a little weird.
  • I strongly think there are (at least) two Czechoslovakias from 1948-1990: One from 1948-1960 (for which there's not yet a clearly matching article on Wikipedia--but should be), and one from 1960-1990 (for which there is: CSSR). In fact, if pressed, I really think there's a 1960-1968 CSSR and a more federated CSSR from 1969-1990 (which explains where the CSR and SSR came from). CzechOut | 06:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of those things are true, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to include them all in this table. It's already too large, really. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There a bunch of other timeline templates on wikipedia, but most of them are REALLY ugly. The only one I could find that looked anything like ours was this Template:EU-timeline, which has done a nice job of integrating the collapsible feature. Can we convert ours to this format when we're done? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Second round of template merger

I wanted to make some direct changes to the evolving template, but didn't want to risk messing up your last version. Plus, the section was getting too damned long. So here goes:



Collapsible version

Well, if we're going to switch over — and I like the format of this collapsable box better — we might as well start now:

Hmmmm, gonna have to stop there for a bit. Need some help actually. Can you please take a look at the code to figure out where I've gone wrong on the rightmost parts of the timeline? It suddenly refuses to put stuff into the next column. Thanks! (Oh, and I don't expect these to be the final colors. Just placeholding color for the moment!) CzechOut | 16:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It was the double-pipes that were being weird. Thanks for converting it all over. That was a nice surprise this morning.
I worked it so the timeline is now much more narrow, but if you add a BR between "Origins of " and "Czechoslovakia" it will be wider again... same with the Sudetenland row. I switched back to the colours I had because that green was really bothering me, but they can obviously change - just not to green. =)
I'm not really happy with the gov't in exile, since it looks as though it preceded both the annexation of the sudetenland and the 2nd republic. Our setup here makes it a little impossible, because the gov't in exile needs to cover both the whole 38-45 period, and all four regions... impossible without a big square. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. i would never have guessed at using single pipes on my own. I'm not really happy with the color yet either, but we're very close to being able to do that little bit of work.
The big issue, at present, is absolutely the GIE. There are two issues, as I see it.
One is whether it's accurate to say it predated the annexation of the Sudentland. This is only marginally less true than saying that trans-Carpathia was a part of the First Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. Technically, it wasn't actually a part until 1 January 1919, but at that time it was governed by a constitution which did date back to 1918. In the same way, the GIE formally began and was recognized by the Allies in June 1940. However, it was pre-dated by the Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee, which arose in 1939. It functioned as a de facto GIE, and was negotiating international agreements at least by late 1939. Recognition of that Committee as a proper government-in-exile wouldn't have happened had not Benes himself gotten out of Czechoslovakia to head it. And it's clear that he left Czechoslovakia to do just that. So I think there's a pretty strong claim to saying that it does slightly predate the annexation of the Sudeten. The other point to make is that, arguing legally, the Allies' nullification of the Munich Agreement, and their ultimate victory in war, meant that the Second Republic hadn't happened. Benes, though in exile, was continuing the First Republic. So from the perspective of V-E Day, it's altogether right and proper that the timeline should indicate that the GIE started in 1938. I think that as long as we perhaps put a footnote in the table, it'll be okay.
However, if we choose to go with an actual, recognized government, then we have to say 1940. I don't know how we would code that into the table, because the Sudetenland was never, ever on Benes' negotiating table. he might have been flexible with the trans-Carpathia and even the exact boundaries of Slovakia, but the Sudetenland was firmly a part of the Czech lands. Its imminent invasion had precipitated his departure; the GIE could in no way declare victory if they had to cede the Sudeten. Victory, for Benes, wasn't just about getting the territory back; it was about kicking the Germans out. (It's his laws that are at the root of current troubles between the government of the Czech Republic and "expat" Sudeten Germans.) Thus, you'd have to somehow code things so that there was a gap in the "annexed by Germany" line. Even if you did, this, though, it would likely push the Second Republic appear to start in 1938, and it would bisect the cells for the Protectorate, the First Slovak Republic, and Carpatho-Ukraine.
The other is how to accomplish it, visually. The clearest way of fixing might be be the most unpalatable: invert the x- and y-axis. This will make the table massive, but you can precisely hit dates that way. It might even solve the problems noted in the above paragraph. Maybe.
Another thought is to find some way of making non-solid backgrounds. Might be possible to make the GIE appear to encompass the entire 38-45 background. For instance, if we could do a candystripe red-on-white background for the GIE "sliver", we could do other backgrounds with that same color of red stripe. I certainly don't know how to accomplish it, but if we could find some way of either actually overlaying a red stripe over the whole 38-45 column, or just faking it by making each individual cell have a stripe, it might parse more or less correctly (with the provisos that trans-Carpathia in practice was ceded in 1944 and that we're saying the GIE started the moment Benes fled the country).
Or we might be able to figure out a way to do a dashed line around a big box encompassing the whole 1938-45 cell.
Finally, since at present there is no article wholly about the GIE, we might be able to create a graphic as big as the area of the 1938-1945 columns, then do a lil onmouseover action. That gets into coding that's beyond me, though, cause I think there'd have to be something there on the page that you could mouse over, like another graphic. I'm not sure how the onmouseover script works with a code-created cell. I'm also not sure how you could do an onmouseover event that would still allow you to click on the link inside the cell.
For the moment, I've just put in some explanatory text. And a sorta "hack job" of graphical representation. Not hugely attached to it, but it sorta makes the point. CzechOut | 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the changes you've made, but I'm not sure most people would. I'm worried it's going to end up overly confusing. It's a template, not an article - we don't have to be perfect in our depiction. Dates and lines don't match up throughout, and we can't do much about this. What about reverting to the last change, but, as you've done, increasing the gov't in exile box and including "Edward Benes' gov't in exile (1939-1945)" ? Maybe we should just create a gov't in exile stub, making all this a little easier? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not a fan of that green you mentioned before. Thanks for getting rid of it. I made the vertical axis match the horizontal one. Not wedded to the color, but I do think the axes should either be the same or totally different colors. Those particular shades of the same color seemed to clash, somehow.
Hah! We did it again. Pressed submit and got a edit conflict. I've made a lot of little changes in the last 30 mins, so I wanna be sure how you wanna revert here. Are you saying take the red bar at the very bottom out and simplify the language of the GIE cell? CzechOut | 05:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. I'm not a big fan of the "german occupation never conceded" box either. It's confusing because it's a different colour than the annexation by germany and precedes it. I think it should be pretty obvious that a government in exile opposes the annexation of its territory by outsiders, no? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And yah, we should just start a GIE article. Possible solution is just to split off the section from the Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany article. CzechOut | 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not sure about reverting all the language yet. There does have to be some reason for putting GIE before 2d Rep/Annexation"

Then we'll but it after the 2nd Rep/Annexation with it's official date of recognition. The article itself can describe the origins of the gov't in exile, including the Benes' flight and the Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee. If 2nd republic is really the non-sequitur, we'll paint it a different colour, rather than the gov't in exile, which claimed continuation? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You read my mind. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

done. TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Next round

Heh, again with the edit conflicts. Luckily, we're both on the same basic track, but mine is sufficiently visually different that I thought it best (and, okay, easier) to just copy it and put it here. That way we can treat the one above as sorta "where we are at the moment" and play with this one. We both had the simultaneous idea of giving up the ghost on the 1938 start to the GIE, but mine includes a reference to the CNLC, which did exist in 1939 and acted like a government. 1940 is a technical start to the government, and exists only because that's when they got international recognition. But they'd been concluding international treaties at least as early as late 1939.

I dunno how stupid an idea this is, but what do you think of creating obvious color mixtures when things intersect? If we make the GIE color the same as the 1st Rep. color, then when it intersects with the yellow of German occupation, it would make orange. Probably a dumb idea, but it's all I could think of. I tried also using a picture as a background, thinking that if we uploaded a pattern or two we might be able to use them, but simply setting the "background" variable to an image name didn't work like it does with simple HTML. If this concept works for you, we'd ultimately bleed it to the right as well. CzechOut | 16:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No no... It's a nice idea not a dumb idea, but I'm not sure it would work with the technology available to us. I'm not sure people would even notice the blending of colours. I didn't even notice that the old template had the same colour for all "czechoslovak states" until I started working on it. =) At the same time, I think it's important to have at least the annexation (the actual control of the sudetenland) span all three columns in the same colour. If possible, the gov't in exile (semi-recognized claim on the sudetenland) should do the same, but unless you like the version above, I'm not sure how to do it.
I really don't think it's necessary to include the CNLC. There was also a parallel (but unrecognized?) claim by communist czechoslovaks in Russia, was there not? And I'm sure there were organizations pushing for the creation of Czechoslovakia before 1918, but they aren't included. There were certainly groups pushing for slovak independence at various stages, they're not included. Same with Hungarian groups claiming sovereignty over parts of Slovakia. I imagine the table as showing recognized governments, not simply all claims. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving towards the finish line

Okay, here's another copy-and-paste job. These are colors I would basically prefer, though I'm certainly open to suggestion. i didn't like the yellow for Nazi-influenced changes, but instead think all that should be different shades of the same color (red, in this example). Yellow seems more natural for the Ukrainian bit. I also think a darker grey for the Czech Republic and white for the Slovak Republic implies that the two came from the grey dating back to the First Republic. Green for Austro-Hungary seems logical as a prominent color of the Hungarian flag.

I have to disagree with omitting the CNLC. As the GIE now makes clear, the evolution from the Committee to the Government is an important part of the institution's complicated history.

Were there other movements for a substitute government? Yeah, but the only one with a half-decent claim to continuity of government, given that even the Soviet Union recognized it, is the Benes one. Incidentally, it's not that that there was a separate government in Moscow, so much as the Czechoslovak Communist Party in exile under Klement Gottwald. One could say that because he ultimately ascended to the top of Czechoslovak politics, he was a president-in-waiting, I suppose. But he needed the institution of the Benes' government (and the Constitution of 1920) to effect his rise. Czechoslovakia is a bit different than other Warsaw pact nations in that it elected to have communism under a democratic constitution. CzechOut | 05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, btw, I love your very elegant solution to the "timeline of the GIE" problem. That lil strip under the Sudeten annexation was very clever indeed :) CzechOut | 06:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay your colours look good to me, the only point of conflict is this CNLC thing. I'm not super keen on including the Ninth-of-May Constitution either, but I'm not sure how else to describe that particular republic. I'm sure the CNLC is to Czechoslovak history, but so were Tomáš Masaryk's organizations. The 1948 coup was important to the history too... the treaty of trianon, the velvet revolution, the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920, the 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia, the Constitutional Law of Federation, the Hyphen War, etc etc. In fact, I would argue all of these are more important than the CNLC, and I'm opposed to their inclusion too. The simpler (less text, less links), the better, so long as it isn't actually incorrect. Templates are meant to clarify, not to teach. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Here's the deal, as I see it. The repudiation of the Munich Agreement by the Allies meant that, in point of law (if not point of fact), the annexation never happened. This then creates ambiguity about the length of time the government-in-exile existed. Does it date just to the fall of France? Does it date to when the CNLC was founded? Does it in theory date all the way back to the resignation of Benes? I guess I don't mind changing the name from CNLC to "government in exile", but I honestly think the latest start date you can put on that government is October 2 1939, when it concluded a treaty with France to reconstitute the Czechoslovak army in France. If you put that date on the name "Czechoslovak government-in-exile", though, I think more than a few people would raise an eyebrow. The current wording is lengthy, but it's pretty airtight in terms of accuracy. CzechOut | 08:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. If the dates are fuzzy, leave the dates out completely. The template gives people an idea of when it was working, and if they want details, they can click on the article and get a good understanding - which can't really be delivered in a 3cm by 10cm box. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying remove dates entirely from every cell? Or just from the GIE one? Tell ya what, why don't you give us one last polishing of the language in the cells and I'll tell ya if I have any problems with it? CzechOut | 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright, fair compromise. Is it time to get this puppy on the main page? CzechOut | 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll transfer it. CzechOut, it's been a pleasure working with you. Hope to see you around in the future. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Old problem unresolved: Third Republic

Ugh. Just when I thought we were basically set, I've remembered a factual problem we never solved. The Third Republic is not usually considered to be 1945-1960, just 1945-1948. (See, for example, item 15 on Columbia University's text-based timeline. Even Third Republic of Czechoslovakia links only to 1945-1948. Complicating matters is that there wasn't an actual name change after 1948, only a declared one. So the best solution I could think of was to just split the 1948-89 column in two, and include a note to that effect. CzechOut | 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another old problem has cropped up. It's way too big. It's significantly off my screen, and I have a decent sized monitor. I didn't notice before, but all of these are outside the colapsible frame. What should we do? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I understand you. It's not off my screen at all. And I don't know what "outside the collapsable frame" means. The whole thing works like other collapsable frames I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm not detecting any fault. CzechOut | 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite not being able to either understand or reproduce your problem (I think it's really more of the former than the latter), I've tried to narrow things where possible by choosing more economical words, or inserting line breaks. It's made the box narrower on my screen, but I'm still not seeing where anything is "outside the collapsable frame" or off my screen. CzechOut | 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird... I'm now at a different computer and it looks fine. I'm not sure what the problem was. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm... it looks fine in internet explorer too. I don't get it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, we might completely eliminate doubt as to its "over-width" by switching the axes. Don't know if that idea appeals to you. CzechOut | 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We could but it's a lot of work. I think we can leave it as is for now. Once we make the switch, if it does cause problems, we'll find out pretty quickly. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vertical orientation

Heh, edit conflicts again. Well, here's a bit of a start to the vertical orientation switch. It's a mess, but you can kinda see how much narrower it would be. CzechOut | 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Auto-collapse?

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)

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)

collapsible table

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)

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

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

New design

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. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Something along these lines:
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 CS it would be expanded and on some like AuH it would be collapsed. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC) PS: It isn't showing correctly in Safari and I don't have MSIE available so here is what it should look like (and does in Firefox) - I think I screwed up the code somewhere. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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? This is at the time of writing full-size here (perm), just as an example. Plus, it looks good. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 05:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Would you be fine with it abbreviated 'to X'? +Hexagon1 (t) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Not too happy but won't argue, I am OK with it. Can we replace the horizontal monstrosity now? :) +Hexagon1 (t) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Have we not established consensus over this version? Any dissenting editors can come and talk it out here instead of just reverting. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the split of Duchy of Teschen?

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)

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)
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)
"international agreement" what a noble words ... Do you think it is still valid ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
I've linked annexed, do you feel better? And this debate has nothing to do with this template, Matthead take your whinging elsewhere. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 Sněžka-Śnieżka article renamed to Schwepps or something... +Hexagon1 (t) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 WP:NPOV. Nor am I going to point out that the searches seemed interestingly manipulated. Because that would be petty. :) So, if I am reading you correcly you're fine with 'Sudetenland' now? +Hexagon1 (t) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. (ref), so Sudetenland should really cover it. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


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

Grid version

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)








Creative Commons License