Talk:Timeline

Egg-Laying Year?

The timeline records "988. Last rookery of eggs laid at Castle Wyvern." I want to make sure this date is accurate. Did Greg say that the eggs were laid in 988? I had thought that eggs are laid in the fall equinox and hatch ten years later in the spring equinox. Are they laid in years ending in 8 or years ending in 7? -- Vaevictis Asmadi 21:01, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

The date is correct. As an example, Demona and Goliath CONCEIVED on the fall equinox in 987. Six months later, on the spring equinox of 988, the egg containing Angela and the other eggs were laid. If all had gone normally, they would've all hatched in 998. Eggs are conceived in years ending in 7, lain in even years ending in 8 (68, 88, 08, etc.) and hatch in odd years ending in 8 (78, 98, 18, etc.) So from conception to hatching is actually a 10 year, six month process. --Matt 22 September 2007

Oh... duh. We were even just talking about this at Ask Greg. Nevermind then... -- Vaevictis Asmadi 15:26, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Phenomena

Phenomena is the original reading from Greg's entry quoted in the Timeline entry. I changed it back to the exact quote when I realized that it isn't a typo. The Matrix is made up of millions of nanobots, so referring to it in the plural is not incorrect, just unusual. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 15:10, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Okay. Sorry about that then. I suppose it could have referred to many (plural) phenomena caused by or related to the Matrix, instead of the Matrix itself? Or Greg may have made a typo when he typed it out first time. If you want to change it back again, I won't change it back again... uh... you know what I mean. -- Supermorff 10:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Canon vs. Canon-in-Training

Because this article is in the Canon category, and because canon-in-training information is still subject to change, I propose to put all of the canon-in-training entries in bold. Obviously nearly all the dates are known only through Ask Greg, and they are all formatted in bold anyhow. I'm only interested in bolding entries for events which are not shown or referred to in canon, or (such as the timing of Nokkar's arrival) for which the date is not so much as hinted in the canon. Vaevictis Asmadi 18:46, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I intend to leave known historical events as "canon" since they probably aren't subject to change. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 10:45, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm also leaving real historical characters un-marked, even though some of them are categorized as C-i-T -- such as Maol Chalvim I. I know this is sort of inconsistent and maybe should be changed later, but I'm trying for the moment to only mark information that is not known through real history or legend. I'm not sure if this is the correct approach, but it is a start. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 11:42, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

A.D or C.E?

I suppose it's theoretically possible that I once used BCE and CE in some specific context, but I almost exclusively use BC and AD. Certainly, my own timeline uses BC and AD. Where did you get the idea that I preffered BCE and CE? - gdw

I was making an inference based on one of your rambles where you discuss the timeline you wrote. The ramble in question is here. I figured since you wrote "from 9386 B.C.E." that was the convention you were using for your written version of the timeline. I suppose I was incorrect in making that deduction?--Moeen 09:46, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Alright, next time somebody decides to re-format a bunch of pages without asking first, I'm going to let somebody else standardise everything.

So Greg, which convention do you prefer, or which do you prefer we use here? -- Vaevictis Asmadi 10:45, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I use BC and AD. But that doesn't mean you guys have to here. This isn't MY site. It belongs to all of you and I pitch in every once in a while. The point I was trying to make was that if the change was being made because "This is how Greg likes it" then that premise is faulty. My gut, I think, is to stick with BC and AD, because that's what the show itself used. But I'll leave the final decision up to you guys. Take a vote.

My apologies, Greg, if I came off as presumptuous. I'll be more careful about my inferences in the future. You are correct, of course, that since this is a fan site, decisions about preferences should be made collectively.

Having said that, I don't see why we can't use both A.D. and C.E., given that the numbers don't change, and there's little chance of confusing the dates as a result. --Moeen 15:36, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

other stuff

Um, there's a lot there that is historical, or makes sense within context that shouldn't make it Canon-In-Training. If Fox had a parole hearing the day after she saved the life's guard, how is that anything other than common sense? Of course that means it's expedited.

On that note, Macbeth's cousin is listed as canon-in-training when he was historically real. (preceding unsigned comment by Greg B.?)

If you think I should change the parole hearing stuff, then I will.

Thorfinn is historical but his involvement in the events listed, and his described manner of death, are not historical, so far as I know. I mostly used Wikipedia to figure out if events were historical or fictional/speculative (and had a heck of a time tracking down the source for that Barricades Revolution). So for example, if Greg says "date - John Lennon born" that would go unmarked, but if he said "date - John Lennon has a secret meeting with the London clan" or "date - John Lennon dies in a car accident in Prague" that's canon-in-training. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 14:38, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

By the way, the Revolution of the Barricades is a historical event. --Moeen 00:03, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

The one in 1832? -- Vaevictis Asmadi 09:19, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Yup. :-) --Moeen 14:31, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Cool, thanks for helping. I'll change that.

Re: Philibert Aspairt, I had completely forgotten that historical facts are not marked CIT. My bad. -- Supermorff 15:15, 3 November 2007 (CDT)

No problem. Some people also aren't familiar with some historical events, so tend to mark them as CIT believing they're fiction. The stuff from France isn't that well known to Americans. You won't find some things in Wikipedia (hard to believe, I know), but there's always the internet. If you like wikis though, you might try the French Wikipedia. Here's the article on Philibert: [1], and the "Revolution of the Barricades" I think: [2], although I don't think the French call it that.--Moeen 00:42, 4 November 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Actually, I Googled him yesterday and came up with that exact page, but not knowing French that well I didn't really understand what it said. Oh well. -- Supermorff 07:27, 4 November 2007 (CST)

Propose Splitting 1996, and perhaps other major years

As some have noticed, this page has become pretty massive. 1996 particularly takes up a lot of room, and there enough info there for it to be worthy of its own page. Since there doesn't seem to be a consensus, I suggest we vote on whether we should split off 1996 or not. So cast in your vote (Split. or Keep.) below along with your reason, and say a week from today we'll go ahead with whatever we decide. Fair enough? Here goes.--Moeen 00:49, 4 November 2007 (CDT)

• Split. The page has become unwieldy, and 1996 has enough info to deserve its own page.--Moeen 00:49, 4 November 2007 (CDT)

• I'm sorry, but I find the Timeline easier to handle as is. We are not splitting it, I don't mean to be rude, but I am pulling rank here. This is not up for vote. --Greg Bishansky

• Split. I may be putting my neck on the line following Greg B's comment, but I think this needs to be done. The Timeline is already huge, and it will only get longer. My computer is on the limits of being able to handle editing it, and soon it just won't be able to. Some editors may have computers that can easily deal with the information, but others do not and it's never good policy to alienate potential users. In a perfect world, I do think it would be easier if all the information was in one place, but I don't think separating off a few sections will make it overly complicated. As I said before, I think it needs to be done. -- Supermorff 07:25, 4 November 2007 (CST)

• Split. I'd say leave most the timeline the way it is, but have links at 1994-1996 (and maybe other years later) due to how massive those years are getting. It reminds me of the Timeline at Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki. Now our timeline isn't as massive as theirs, but one day it could be. They have sperate pages for years, decades, centuries, whatever works best. Anyway, don't want to piss off Greg B here, but if done correctly, this would look pretty good. Greg, I'd like to better understand why you feel it is easier to handle as is. I find myself constantly scrolling and dancing around to find a certain date. It's chaotic. -- Matt 4 November 2007

• • Okay, first off, no one is "putting necks on the line" or "pissing me off" just for having opinions. But, earlier, when it was split, I gave it a try, and I'm sorry, but I know I would find it annoying having to go to multiple pages at once just to edit the Timeline. Supermorff, I'm sorry your computer is having trouble with it, but mine isn't, and so far I don't think too many other people are having that problem. Matt, I don't know if you are, or not, but you can always use Ctrl+F to find what you're looking for in the Timeline without having to constantly scroll. That's what I do when I'm in a hurry. I'm sorry you find it unwieldy or chaotic, but I disagree. I find it very straight forward and easy to use. I don't think a split needs to be done. -- User:Greg Bishansky

• • • I don't mean to sound rude but, pull rank? Users are ranked on this site? Why haven't I seen this anywhere? I thought this being a fansite decisions were made by consensus? (Someone should really write guidelines for this site somewhere, perhaps whoever has the highest rank?). Secondly, sounds to me like if you need to resort to Ctrl+F to find something, this page is already too massive. Also, 1994-6 are major years and being where most of the series takes place are pretty self-contained. Being major years at least 1996 deserves its own page (it takes up about half the timeline as it is!). I honestly don't see how having that year on its own page makes the timeline that much harder to edit. It's not exactly being split into a whole lot of pages, just one to three more. If you find it hard to edit, you could just leave the adding of events to other users that find it otherwise.--Moeen 12:21, 4 November 2007 (CST)

• I dunno whether a rank system exists or not here, but it doesn't matter. We all want what is best on this site and we disagree on what that is. Frankly, I can see the advantages and disadvantages to both proposals. The reason I say split it also has to do with the fact that the timeline is slowly, but surely growing. With Greg W's "This Day in...", the revelations from the Gargoyles comic and all the stuff thats gonna be coming with spinoffs, the timeline is going to get huge. It already is. Greg W. says his timeline is hundreds of pages long. Do we want the equivalent of a hundred or two hundred page document on one GargWiki page? I don't think so. Eventually, we are going to HAVE to split up the page, so we may as well do it now. I can see something like a page for all the pre-history stuff, a page from then to say where Dark Ages starts, a page from there to 1994, a page for '94, '95, and '96 (and eventually one for '97 as well), and a page for the future stuff. All these pages could be linked sequencely. Right now a far simpler spliting would be all that was neccesary, but one day... Anyway, thats what I envision. A 300 page timeline on one GargWiki page isn't a good idea. --Matt 4 November 2007

Keep I don't know what all the rank stuff is about, but I don't want to split it. 1996 is already a subsection that can be edited by itself. I always edit just one subsection at a time. Making 1996 a separate page won't make it any smaller than it already is, and you can already edit it as a subsection instead of editing the entire page. That's why I created a separate subsection for Before 1994, so it could be edited separately. But I would find it much harder to edit if it was entirely separate pages. Maybe one day we will have to split it, but I don't think it's necessary yet. If we did split it, it would look pretty silly to have Future and Before 1994 and Dim Prehistory all on one page, we'd have to make each subsection a separate page. But why would it be easier to edit them then, when they can already be edited separately? I guess I don't understand why it is causing a problem.

I also use Ctrl+F and not just on the Timeline, but on most Gargwiki pages except for the shortest stubs. I don't consider it a sign that a page is too long.

But I don't like the idea of "pulling rank." I don't think that any one of us should be able to disregard consensus. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 19:02, 4 November 2007 (CST)

Keep' I gotta side with Greg B. here. Maybe one day we'll have to split the timeline into separate sections, but for now, I think it's fine the way it is. It's easier to find stuff (just go to "find") because it's all in one place. We can worry about splitting the timeline when it truly does become unmanageable, if it ever comes to that. Dtaina 20:37, 4 November 2007 (CST)

When I split the 1994 section off into a new article, I transcluded the new page back into the Timeline. This means that when you are looking through the Timeline, it would look exactly the same as it does now. Information should be no harder to find, whether you use Ctrl-F or not, and there would be no need to split off random sections either. The only difference would occur when editing the page, and I understand that it would perhaps be a bit harder to manage, but I don't think it would be much harder.

There is a possible compromise, in which the section headings are split off as well and transcluded, instead of left in the original article. This would mean that the [edit] link beside the heading would take you to the edit page of the new article. If we did it that way, editing the Timeline should (hopefully) be no harder than editing section-by-section. Is it worth trying like that? -- Supermorff 13:05, 5 November 2007 (CST)

That sounds like a pretty good compromise. Given how there currently isn't a consensus on splitting the page, it might be worth getting other people's thoughts on this. While it technically puts the information on separate pages, it will show up on the same page, allowing anyone to edit using either method, which seems to resolve the main sticking points of the disagreement. Works for me. For those of you unfamiliar with transclusion, see here.--Moeen 20:07, 5 November 2007 (CST)

I had no idea what transclusion was. It sounds like if you split but transcluded, for example, 1996, then the entire content of the 1996 page would appear on the Timeline page exactly where it does now, and the appearance of the Timeline page would not be affected? If I'm understanding right, then the only remaining issue would be which choice (keep or split) is easiest to edit for the largest number of members. (And I suppose we could try splitting/transcluding and change it back if it makes editing harder). -- Vaevictis Asmadi 14:37, 6 November 2007 (CST)

That's right, and that was the idea. When I split off 1994 into a new article, it was transcluded back into the Timeline. But five hours later, Greg decided that it did make the editing too hard and changed it back.

Part of the problem (I guess) might have been that the [edit] button by the 1994 section was attached to that section of the Timeline, and not the new article, so all that appeared was:

==1994==
{{:1994}}

Also I didn't add a link to the 1994 article in the timeline, which would have made it harder to navigate between them (an editor would have to input the new article in the search bar manually). So... to solve these problems (my own fault, I realise), we can split the section heading off into the new article, so that the [edit] button that appears in the Timeline does go to the desired section. We could also turn the section heading into a link as well, just to make it easier.

I'm hesitant to split off 1996 at this early stage because we're still learning things that happened in that year. If we're going to test it, let's go for 1994 again. Worth another try? -- Supermorff 09:54, 7 November 2007 (CST)

For what it's worth, I find the timeline section fairly unwieldy. -gdw

[withheld]

I can understand the reluctance to not put in all the dates and times withheld from "This Day...", and I'm NOT saying you should. BUT... a friendly warning... by not putting them in gradually as place-holders, you're setting yourselves up for a LOT of work in the not-too-distant-future. -gdw

We can always go back and retreive them from Ask Greg, can't we? If we retrieve them now I'd say to keep them on the talk page until there's something to say. It would look weird on the timeline itself. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 17:05, 7 November 2007 (CST)

• I believe this all has something to do with the fact that Issues 7-9 are going to be non-linear. -Matt 7 November 2007

If it's withheld now because issues 7-9 haven't been released yet, then it won't be withheld the next time you do these days on "This Day...", right? In which case we can just add it in when it's revealed.--Moeen 20:53, 7 November 2007 (CST)

Well, that's assuming I'm still doing "This Day..." a year from now. Once I've gone through a whole calendar year, I may discontinue the feature. Still, I'm only suggesting place-holders to save you guys time later. If you don't mind doing a big chunk o' whatever as each issue comes out, then I've got no trouble with the current policy. - gdw