Template talk:Structural evolution of the European Union

message: This chart is rather hard to understand.  Some squares are unlabelled, some entities appear twice, and it's unclear what entities merged off of or joined with others vs. what jurisdictions they had. -- Beland 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the image cleanup tag.  The chart appears to be significantly improved since the tag was placed. Dread Pirate Westley•Aargh 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to understand 

message: Euratom didn't come into effect until 1957, unlike the chart shows, but I don't know how exactly to change it. 68.40.190.93 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Euratom

message: The ECSC lasted until 2002 now it looks like it ended in year 2000.Benkeboy 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ECSC

message: Absolutely wonderful. —Nightstallion 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New design 

message: This table badly needs a title bar to explain what it is.  My attempts have failed miserably so I've walked away rather than risk ruining it. --Red King (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is mostly used as in-text illustration, and the surrounding text in the various articles should explain and introduce this timeline with a colon, IMO. - \mathrm{S} \mathrm{Solberg} \mathrm{J} 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title bar needed 

message: It took me a long time to figure out that this timeline was not saying that the EU does not exist, and even then I could only figure it out because I knew that to be false. A naive reader would think that the EC was founded some time after the Maastricht Treaty, and that the EU is scheduled to come into being perhaps in 2009. The Czech timeline is much clearer. This really needs to be cleaned up. (In the meantime I labeled the dates of the founding of the EC and EU.) kwami (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unintelligible 

message: Has anyone else noticed how this template looks when it's printed? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like this:
 — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Almost two years on and this issue has yet to be addressed. Turning this template into an svg images should seriously be considered. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display issues 

message: Someone changed the years. The Treaty of Paris (1951) is now listed in the year it came into force (1952). This is irritating. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise the Treaty of Paris is the "1951 Treaty of Paris" and not the "1952 Treaty of Paris", but otherwise the date a treaty was signed is of relatively little value. Similarly the EU and its pillars were created in 1993 not 1992. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years changed 

message: First the dates have been changed, now the year 1948 (Treaty of Brussels) was added. What's the benefit of destroying the international version of the timeline? It's troublesome that the English-speaking Wikipedia gets its own EU history, different from all other languages/countries. --Kolja21 (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU founded in 1948? 

message: Wow. Impressive use of WikiMedia tables! --Rebroad (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: Should we add the Schengen Agreement? It is listed in the :Template:EU treaties and declarations. Alinor (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See also above. Alinor (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

text: slight error i think. It should been absorbed in the European community, not the CFSP.--217.112.177.211 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite know why I assumed it was incorporated into the CFSP. But I guess you are right; I'll change it. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Try Justice and Home Affairs. In any event the actual Schengen rules originate form 1995 when Schengen was put into effect and not 1985 when the initial agreement was signed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schengen Agreement 

message: Hi.  Can I suggest that the final column on the right be widened?  It now covers a period of 5 years, but appears very narrow compared to a similar column, such as the Single European Act (6 years).  Maybe the same width as Maastricht?  The way it is now, it looks like it hasn't been updated.  Just a suggestion!  Thanks. 86.163.28.35 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Article claims the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) pillar changed to the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC) in 2003, however the timeline conversely indicates this happened in 1999.
81.106.49.232 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  JHA to PJCC 

message: I don't see why a border should be put around the timeline. It is already big enough as it is, taking screen sizes into account. Adding a border would, for the sake of aesthetics, require some extra margin, which would make the timeline even more cramped. - Ssolbergj (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any element which isn't part of the article text should be offset somehow. We use borders to separate content from any other type of diagram; there's no reason to make an exception here. Diagrams that use template markup are an inaccessible mess anyway (we should have gotten rid of them a long time ago) and already get a border on mobile, so this is a small readability win until they're converted into a more sensible format. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the notion that "Any element which isn't part of the article text should be offset somehow". It's not true that "We use borders to separate content from any other type of diagram". :File:Political System of the European Union.svg is shown in EU without a border, and I think it looks quite nice. In academic literature figures, often with a white background, generally just have a number and a caption, not necessarily a border. The "thumb" is not always necessary or needed IMO. - Ssolbergj (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're using an image with text embedded in it as an example? That's quite obviously wrong. Nonetheless, this is too much of a mess to bother with simple fixes; it'll need a complete rewrite, and I haven't time for that right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border 

message: Parts of JHA (border controls, visa policy, asylum etc.) turned into EC through the Treaty of Amsterdam. Currently it looks like PJCC contained the same things as JHA, but it didn't. Can someone correct the template? Thanks, --Glentamara (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  JHA not same as PJCC 

message: This template causes referencing errors in Common Security and Defence Policy because that article defines its own footnote with . Those definitions get sucked into the  produced by this template, then are undefined in the artilcle. This template includes no documentation, so I can't know how the authors of the template intended it to be used without causing problems in including articles.
What is the correct fix? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a fix that relieves the issue in the Common Security and Defence Policy. I had hoped that a specially-named group would fix the issue, but groups can only be of a certain set because the group name also influences the visual representation of the footnote. Instead, I've changed the template to use lower-roman footnotes, which  seem seldomly used throughout the encyclopedia.  This gives the footnotes here their own namespcae, so the  invocation the template generates won't interfere with footnotes in the including article ... as long as that article doesn't itself use lower-roman footnotes. This templtae doesn't have any documentation, so I'll add some that explains this limitation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing errors caused by this template