Template talk:Czechoslovakia timeline

message: 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)
thread_title: Wrong

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Hmmmm... it looks fine in internet explorer too. I don't get it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Old problem unresolved: Third Republic

message: 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)
thread_title: Vertical orientation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Auto-collapse? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Moot point now that its axes have been switched. CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  collapsible table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grid version 

message: 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)
replies: text: I already discussed this in my edit summary.  - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History of Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia 

message: @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)
replies: text: I already discussed this in my edit summary.  - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sudden revert