Template talk:Timeline of the Ottoman Empire

Former countries: Ottoman Empire Template‑class

	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.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

comment[edit]

Wow, this is nice! But should we maybe adjust the size a bit. Some of the names are barely readable. I'd suggest to match it to Template:Timeline_of_the_Roman_Empire and Template:Timeline_of_the_Roman_Republic, they are pretty big, but screen resolutions are ever increasing and the timeline is on its own page, so a bit scrolling shouldn't hurt. --Dschwen 12:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First try: User:Dschwen/Timeline_of_History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire. --Dschwen 13:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OttomanReference, I merged some of your changes into my version (see above) and uploaded it over the template. I wish there would have been some discussion on this page first. However I disagree about linking to History of Russo-Turkish wars and Ottoman wars in Europe, which fits the Main-Article idea, but in the timeline we might as well present indivitual conflicts. Especially since History of Russo-Turkish wars covers a period much larger than the Ottoman Empire. What do you think? --Dschwen 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of links would be so high; links become NOISE. There are main articles that coveres periods. They are designed to filter out the massive information (624 years). My vote is kepp the main articles. helps people to recognize the issues. NOTE: Near-eastern wars is missing. I will create that article This way EUrope-Russia-Neareast wars will cover three main theathers.--OttomanReference 07:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing those articles I tend to agree. However it might be interesting to complement your links with a couple significant more specific links. After all it kind of defies the purpose of e timeline to put in one huge bar showing no temporal resolution. --Dschwen 07:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]