What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics ykttw archive back to Main/GrandUnifiedTimeline

 

Korodzik
topic
03:41:09 AM Aug 17th 2014
This might be minor, but we should decide on some kind of standard - what should we put after the dates: colons, or dashes?

Example:
  • August 24: Peabody and Sherman teach Matthew Clift to swim, so he can become the first person to swim across the English Channel. (Rocky and Bullwinkle)
  • August 24 - Peabody and Sherman teach Matthew Clift to swim, so he can become the first person to swim across the English Channel. (Rocky and Bullwinkle)

What if the date is a range (e.g. "March 16 - April 6")?
SeptimusHeap
04:23:14 AM Aug 17th 2014
Prefer colons. Especially when the dashes are already used to connect a range.
Telcontar
moderator
04:32:37 AM Aug 17th 2014
Ditto.
1810072342
topic
02:00:24 PM Jan 10th 2014
Does this page cover Alternate History stories? I understand that there are many events listed on this, several of them contradictory to some degree, but what about alternate history stories?
Arcorann
topic
10:19:13 PM May 16th 2013
With regards to the Lord of the Rings dates, I note that the dating system from http://3rings.webs.com/chronology was added in 2011, then reverted in 2012. Can anyone explain why this was done? I can't see why we're sacrificing six orders of magnitude of precision here.
Antwan
topic
06:31:07 AM Aug 21st 2012
What should we do if a significant event has two different dates? I was thinking of adding Snatcher's "The Catastrophe" to the list, but there is a problem: the original version have it occur in June 6, 1991. However, the American version of the game on the Sega CD lists it as June 6, 1996.

Should I go with 1991, 1996, or both?
VampireBuddha
09:07:14 AM Mar 15th 2013
1991. You can insert a hottip explaining the discrepancy.
SpectreAgent
topic
05:25:22 PM Nov 9th 2011
ALL of the Star Wars references are inaccurate and should be removed. The only reference dates we have for SW are that the original films take place "A long time ago..." In-universe things are dated BBY or ABY (before or after the battle of Yavin) but we have no way of relating that to our calendar.
SchizoTechnician
05:32:47 PM Nov 9th 2011
edited by SchizoTechnician
Its explained on the main page, in the giant list with all of the other alternative timeline series we've put in the list (there are 18 other series).

If you take out Star Wars, you must also take out Lord Of the Rings/ The Silmarillion and the Bible; if you leave those, put Star Wars back.
SpectreAgent
06:01:03 PM Nov 9th 2011
Tolkein's Word of God allows us to date the Lord of the Rings chronology relative to us. Not so with Star Wars.
SchizoTechnician
06:13:54 PM Nov 9th 2011
edited by SchizoTechnician
But the bible timeline is simply fan interpretation, whereas Star Wars has an officially published document, albeit one from an alternate timeline, defining the "a long time ago" as being "160 years, give or take".

Also, officially published means it DOES have canonical status, just at a lower rung in the Star Wars Canon Heirarchy. As nothing in higher canon contradicts it (160 years IS a long time), I see no reason to disregard it.
SpectreAgent
06:28:20 PM Nov 9th 2011
The Bible has some historical scholarship behind (i.e. we have an idea when Pilate was governor of Judea) but the story that dates Star Wars, "Into the Great Unknown", is VERY cheeky. Basing the timeline off of that alone is REALLY misleading beside being non-canonical.
SpectreAgent
06:32:26 PM Nov 9th 2011
BTW higher canon has discredited it. Chewbacca died during the Vong War as opposed to becoming Bigfoot for example.
SchizoTechnician
06:33:31 PM Nov 9th 2011
edited by SchizoTechnician
We have an idea of when Pilate was governor of Judea, yeah, and the stuff with Babylon is easy to date, and there's mounds of archeological evidence for the kingdoms of Judea and Israel, although we could spend years comparing and arguing the starting dates and early years... but anything before the Exodus is pretty much pure interpretation.

edit: its an alternate timeline. Like Star Wars Infinities- same history, but with an unknown Point of Divergence. Higher canon hasn't discredited the events of the story because they're an alternate timeline and so are irrelevant; its the background details that won't change between parallel timelines that are important here.
SpectreAgent
06:50:14 PM Nov 9th 2011
Its basically a one-note joke story, is all. I won't belabor the point anymore, but the implication has always been that SW takes place untold eons ago, not within relatively recent memory.
SchizoTechnician
07:02:01 PM Nov 9th 2011
edited by SchizoTechnician
Whatever; it was clear from the get-go that neither of us would convince the other, and trying to edit it would just lead to edit-war that'd get the articles locked and make us both look like children. I'm dissappointed and saddened and frustrated, and will simmer for a while and get upset when I think of it, but it really isn't something I'm willing to stake my pride on. I only ask that either you return the entries to "pre-history" or remove them from the rest of the pages up to the 1950s; it doesn't feel right to be half-done.
DonaldthePotholer
topic
02:41:53 AM Sep 18th 2011
I'm curious: Why are we taking Chrono Triggers dates literally? Just because they use the same term? Their "Lord" is not Jesus, but rather the First King of Guardia! They could use "Anno Domini" to refer to the reign of the Guardian Kings, but an outside observer would not, anymore than they would use that term to refer to Jesus! Outside observers would use "Guardian Era" or G.E.

Granted, assuming a parallel development of technology is fallacious in its own right, but the technology in Guardian Year 1000 is similar to American technology circa Christian Year 1950. Even accounting for The Dung Ages, did the citizens of Constantinople have the same sort of quality of life as Sir Glenn and his contemporaries (both labeled as circa 600 AD)?
armogohma
topic
01:21:04 PM Aug 13th 2011
If nobody minds, I'm gonna add a few Ar tonelico events to the timeline.
VampireBuddha
topic
08:08:59 AM Jun 23rd 2011
So I happened to be taking a look around the web, and it seems someone else has had the same idea as us. They even have a timeline.
boristus
topic
09:59:35 PM May 28th 2011
edited by boristus
Regarding the Half-Life/Portal timeline placements, we've previously had them listed under 1998, citing the 2010 portal timeline. However, Valve's general consensus on the issue is that Erik Wolpaw, the person who made the timeline, got the date wrong, and that they occur at the unspecified date of 200-. I've edited the The Eighties And Nineties and The Near Past And Future pages accordingly, but have not changed the main Grand Unified Timeline page, which references the faulty timeline. How should I proceed?

(Note, further information on the 2010 Portal timeline screwup can be found [1] here.

Edited for me being bad with pagelinking.
LD
topic
06:33:58 PM Apr 17th 2011
Why the switch from AD to CE? Both are a dating system based on the birth of Jesus Christ, after all. If some other man or idea is going to be exalted, then show some honesty and spell out the real focus of history, be it Copernicus, Darwin, Marx, or whatever True Prophet you choose.

Using CE merely obscures the problem - after all, why should the Common Era start at that particular time?

Unless you actually mean the Christian Empire, which at least makes sense.
VampireBuddha
08:07:43 AM Jun 23rd 2011
It's because AD stands for 'anno domini, meaning in the year of our Lord'', which apparently is offensive to some people who don't worship Jesus and/or God.

Personally, I just assume CE stands for Christian Era.
OldManHoOh
topic
01:18:05 PM Dec 29th 2010
edited by OldManHoOh
Not sure whether to ask this here or in The Near Past And Future, but...

Does anyone know which year series 3 of The Sarah Jane Adventures is set? I'm pretty sure about the other ones, just not 3.
SchizoTechnician
topic
06:34:54 PM Nov 30th 2010
edited by SchizoTechnician
What happened to the years between 2200 and 3000? Nevemind, I handled it
Micah
08:08:24 PM Nov 30th 2010
I made that page under GrandUnifiedTimeline.The Third Millennium and apparently just forgot to list it on the forum thread for indexing. So now we have a duplicate. Um, yay?
SchizoTechnician
08:09:24 PM Nov 30th 2010
Eh, oh well. Feel free to cutlist the one I made then.
74.71.24.5
topic
02:06:18 PM Aug 15th 2010
Why does the timeline only go up to about the 80's? Shouldn't it go up to the present?
SchizoTechnician
02:08:43 PM Aug 15th 2010
It was split based on contents rather than date, since it was split due to overspill. The stuff between the division point used and the present day was voluminous enough that it would have practically guaranteed that this page would overflow again long before Grand Unified Timeline Two.
71.176.170.141
topic
07:26:00 PM Jun 5th 2010
edited by 71.176.170.141
What about works of historical fiction? For example, Claudius becomes emperor of the Roman Empire in C.E. 41 in both real life history and in I, Claudius. Can I add such events to the timeline?

- John 17 Martin
VampireBuddha
08:31:01 AM May 28th 2011
Go ahead.
VampireBuddha
08:31:06 AM May 28th 2011
Go ahead.
JEB1981
topic
10:28:54 PM May 5th 2010
Seeing as the page is only a few months old and it already needed a split... maybe we should go all the way and follow the example of the other Multi Page Tropes - create an index and pre-emptively split a lot of these folders off onto separate pages. Would probably save a lot of trouble later...
muninn
12:43:14 PM May 7th 2010
Split by time period as opposed to Medium, correct?
SchizoTechnician
12:47:39 PM May 7th 2010
I think if we do do that, the Beginning of the Universe should be grouped with the era immediately after it, and the End of the Universe should be grouped with the era immediately before it. Not enough in 'em for a whole page.
JEB1981
03:47:02 PM May 7th 2010
Yep, split by time period. Might be easiest to take the folders we have now and just make pages from them (and incorporating the merger you suggest, Schizo Technician), unless anyone wants to propose a new split. That'd be 19 folders (21 folders, plus merging the first two and the last two together).

Alternately, we could consolidate the range now to something like ten or a dozen pages, and just plan on being open to further future splits when we need them. If we do that, I'd say the 20th century should remain split into multiple pages, at least.

Also, we should probably put each "A note on dates" on each apropos page (any page with Lord of the Rings dates has that note, etc.).
94.2.203.188
07:21:36 AM May 12th 2010
edited by 94.2.203.188
How about it splits into
  1. Prior to 10,000 B.C.
  2. 10,000 B.C. to 1 B.C.
  3. 1 C.E. to 1700
  4. 1701 to either 1900 or 1989
  5. 1901/1990 to 2100
  6. 2101 to 3000
  7. 3000 to 10,000
  8. 10,001 and beyond

Does that work? Not sure what I'd do about the lead section for each though. But yeah, section it off as a Multi Page Trope, whatever happens.
robert
07:43:26 AM May 12th 2010
Matching up with the split used by Hollywood History, where applicable, would seem sensible. Doing so exactly wouldn't be workable, but being able to identify the pages that correspond to the Victorian or Classical eras should be helpful for cross-referencing. This means they shouldn't have partial overlaps - 1500-1700 on one page here, and 1488-1603 elsewhere makes cross-referencing harder - though having multiple historical eras on one timeline page, or splitting one historical era into multiple timeline pages is fine
94.2.203.188
08:45:15 AM May 12th 2010
robert
10:13:31 AM May 12th 2010
Consider, for example, Ancient Rome, all of whose examples are naturally set between approximately 750BC and 450AD. Crosslinking that with the relevant timeline pages is an obvious thing to do, and will be made slightly easier if we avoid partial overlaps.
94.2.203.188
01:47:09 PM May 16th 2010
No it's not obvious, partly because it's a Just for Fun page. I don't understand the point of the cross-referencing. Not to mention the shows set there are already listed there.
robert
10:52:22 PM May 16th 2010
The alternative risks ending up with two grand unified timelines in two different parts of the site. Further, while this may be just for fun, it's still interesting to give some idea of the assumed historical background.
VampireBuddha
09:05:34 AM Mar 16th 2012
Right, since the individual pages have gotten quite epically long, I propose a further split to keep things manageable. How does this sound?

  • Deep time: Everything up to 100,000 BCE
  • Prehistory: 99,999 BCE - 10,000BCE
  • Stone Age: 9999 BCE - 3000 BCE
  • Ancient History: 2999 BCE - 500 BCE
  • Antiquity: 499 BCE - 499 CE
  • Early Middle Ages: 500 - 799
  • High Middle Ages: 800 - 1199
  • Late Middle Ages: 1200 - 1499
  • Renaissance: 1500 - 1749
  • Age of Revolution: 1750 - 1815
  • Mid-Nineteenth Century: 1816 - 1860
  • Industrial Revolution: 1861 - 1899
  • Early Twentieth Century: 1900 - 1913
  • World War I: 1914 - 1918
  • Inter-War Period: 1919 - 1938
  • World War II: 1939 - 1945
  • Late Forties And Fifties: 1946 - 1959
  • Sixties: 1960 - 1969
  • Seventies: 1970 - 1979
  • Eighties: 1980 - 1989
  • Nineties: 1990 - 1999
  • Noughties: 2000 - 2009
  • Recent Past: 2010 - 2012 [will be updated as future years become past]
  • Near future: 2013 - 2019
  • Early 21st Century: 2020 - 2050
  • Late 21st Century: 2051 - 2100
  • Early 22nd Century: 2101 - 2150
  • Late 22nd Century: 2151 - 2200
  • 23rd Century: 2201 - 2300
  • 24th Century: 2301 - 2400
  • Late Third Millennium: 2401 - 3000
  • Fourth Millennium: 3001 - 4000
  • Fifth Millennium: 4001 - 5000
  • Far Future: 5001 - 30,000
  • Age Of Grim Darkness: 30,001 - 42,000
  • End of Time: Everything after 42,000 CE
90.220.248.252
topic
06:34:45 PM May 5th 2010
edited by 90.220.248.252
Just as a side note, you did account for the B.C. dates being set...

Err, let me explain it like this.

It is 2010. 2009 years ago is 1 C.E.. 2010 years ago is 1 B.C.. Did the Star Wars examples do that when you subtracted from the year 1814?
SchizoTechnician
06:36:31 PM May 5th 2010
I just did [date BBY]-1814...
90.220.248.252
09:52:52 PM May 5th 2010
Let me phrase it another way (even I'm not sure if I know exactly what I'm talking about)—1814 BBY is 1 B.C as opposed to 0 A.D while 1813 BBY is 1 C.E. I believe, if I'm thinking right that anything pre-1813 BBY should be calculated as [date BBY]-1815. The confusion is the Yavin calendar does have a Year 0 while the Gregorian doesn't.
SchizoTechnician
09:54:19 PM May 5th 2010
For the sake of all of our sanities, lets adjust by modifying dates ABY, rather than BBY.
SchizoTechnician
topic
05:43:22 PM May 5th 2010
I think we've reached maximum length; my new edits aren't showing up. I'll try and split it into BC and CE...
90.220.248.252
05:51:01 PM May 5th 2010
I'd assume that splitting after 1899 or 1900 would be better than from 1990.
SchizoTechnician
05:54:40 PM May 5th 2010
edited by SchizoTechnician
honestly, I just went from what looked like the middle in an attempt to get both of them the same length and stave off length overflow in the two new ones as long as possible. Anyone want to fix up the dividing point or smooth out the two articles, feel free to. I am beat.
94.2.212.203
topic
11:04:16 AM May 4th 2010
My description of Doctor Who's "Blink" (in 2007 at least) isn't too wordy is it?
75.74.152.215
12:57:02 PM May 4th 2010
The point of the Timeline is to be brief; a short description will do just fine.
75.74.152.215
topic
05:10:32 PM Apr 27th 2010
A while ago, I added the following in the introduction:

  • Make sure that the date you say the events take place can be proven (Just because a movie was filmed in 1994, it doesn't mean it is undoubtedly set in 1994).

Should we keep this in? I only added it when I saw movies like Toy Story, The Incredibles and The Blues Brothers (among others) on the timeline. Did they even mention what dates they took place in?
JEB1981
07:23:12 PM Apr 28th 2010
I would assume that if a fictional work appears to be contemporary with the year it was released, you're fairly safe setting it in that year unless proven otherwise. A lot of sequel works certainly seem to go with that premise when they date events from their predecessors - Beast Wars identifying the original Transformers series as beginning in 1984, for example. If a contemporary-setting work is later revealed not to take place in the year it was released, as stated in a sequel or promotional materials or Word of God or such, it's easy enough to correct it later.
75.74.152.215
05:59:58 PM Apr 30th 2010
I understand that, but I'm just concerned that people might overdo it. If the year of production is considered to be the setting of the work for all "present day" films, what's stopping people from adding all works. I understand TV Tropes' rules about notability, but I also don't want the timeline to become so big it is impossible to update.
JEB1981
07:26:24 PM Apr 30th 2010
The very concept of this page (a "Grand Unified Timeline") pretty much demands that all works that can be dated relative to Earth history should be included. This also makes it inevitable that it will get quite huge when it is "finished" (which itself seems unlikely). Even if we were to exclude any work that did not explicitly state its date (which would also necessarily exclude a lot of fairly popular and well-known works that could otherwise be dated as "contemporary"), it would still be quite large. There's a lot of fiction out there, after all.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the ridiculously huge scope of the page - just have fun with it! The page is Just for Fun, after all...
muninn
01:32:10 PM May 4th 2010
@75.74.152.215: I believe that The Incredibles actually does give a date for when it takes place (or at least, it gives a year). If somebody listed it under the year the movie came out, they were quite a bit off: If I recall correctly, it actually takes place in the '70s.

I would second the idea that works on this page should be ones which give an actual date in the work itself (or enough information that a date can be worked out). For example, if "The film takes place in a leap year where april 13th falls on a friday and there is a full moon" is able to narrow the time of the film down to a time that is reasonably close to when the film was made (or more specifically, when the film appears to be set), I'd say that the film deserves inclusion.
JEB1981
04:31:32 PM May 4th 2010
Yeah, I listed The Incredibles under its year of release. My bad. But it was properly corrected, so I don't see a problem...

To be blunt, I think it'll choke a lot of the fun out of this timeline if we require detailed proof of the date of every single event. You'll exclude a lot of works and strongly discourage participation with such a requirement, and it also needlessly holds this specific page to a much higher reference standard than the rest of TV Tropes.

I'm not opposed to justifications in cases where a given date might seem unlikely to the average reader, but I think most dates should be reasonably trusted unless there's proof they're wrong (as there was with Incredibles).
muninn
09:40:43 AM May 5th 2010
Actually, I'd say that "excluding a lot of works" is a requirement for just about every page at TV Tropes. There's a reason we don't have tropes like "People Sit on Chairs" or "People Breath Air".

If we allow date of release/printing/whatever, this list would be "List of all works of fiction by date of release...except for these few which state that they take place in some other time". It's not a "higher reference standard" to require that works listed on a page that lists works in order of when their fictional timelines occur should actually specify when the work occurs (rather than production date), anymore than requiring that all works listed under Mystical Waif should actually have at least one Mystical Waif in them is a "higher reference standard".
JEB1981
09:59:01 PM May 5th 2010
First, it is most certainly a "higher reference standard" - the Mystical Waif page does not require a list of traits possessed by each example character that prove they meet the trope. Usually, only the name and source are identified, and we generally trust that the editor's judgment can be relied upon. More detailed descriptions are saved for characters that the average reader might consider questionable, or otherwise form some sort of exception.

Second, requiring proof for every entry that does not explicitly state its date is feasible, but not practical. If we do that, it'll require many entries to add detailed citations noting reference works, web pages, episode names, Word of God quotes, and so forth - simply because the work itself didn't state a year right up front. Furthermore, if you have a page filled with these citations (even in hottip form) many readers who might have initially thought "ooh, let me add <favorite series> to the timeline!" will see how much work they'd need to do, and decide against it. This would likely deprive us of possible additions.

In short, proof seems fine for weird or questionable cases, but I don't think it should be required in every case... or you stop this Just for Fun page from being fun.
JEB1981
topic
07:08:45 PM Apr 26th 2010
Regarding the removal of redlinks... is there some policy against creating links to media pages that don't yet have pages on TV Tropes, but really should have pages since they are an actual existing fictional work? As you might guess, I've added some links of this sort, and rather than being taken as an invitation to create said page, they seem to get removed...
75.74.152.215
06:01:31 PM Apr 30th 2010
Considering many of the red links are for Marvel Comics and DC Comics storylines, I would let them stay. If nobody makes pages for them, then delete the links.
VampireBuddha
topic
10:49:22 AM Apr 21st 2010
Removed this Sonichu stuff. I really believe that fanfic shouldn't be included.

  • June 1-3 - While fighting a giant chaos-like creature, Super Sonic collides with a wild Pikachu. This collision is the catalyst that causes various horrid, Lovecraftian creatures to form and terrorize the city of CWCville. (Sonichu)
  • June 4 - Shortly after the collision with Super Sonic, the Pikachu, now a mutated electric hedgehog named Sonichu, comes across Rosechu, a female Raichu who was also hit by the blast and transformed. After stalking her for several hours, they make out with eachother. (Sonichu)
  • May 15 - The Chaotic Combo meets for the first time. Chaos ensues. (Sonichu)

Also, for Andromeda, Dragonball, The Lord Of The Rings, and Gundam, I moved the date justifications to the very top of the entry to save readers from excessive hottip clickage.
JEB1981
07:23:42 PM Apr 21st 2010
While I have no great love for Sonichu, I have to ask - how can something qualify for a TV Tropes page but not qualify for this timeline? I would think if it's on TV Tropes, it's fair game...

Good idea on consolidating the date justifications (I was increasingly thinking such was a good idea myself), but it might get kinda cluttered up there eventually if enough date systems are put in... maybe the justifications should be moved to the end? Or enclosed in a folder?
VampireBuddha
11:53:21 AM Apr 28th 2010
Sonichu is fanfic; thus, it isn't part of the canon of Sonic, Pokemon, or whatever else is involved.

The timeline is supposed to be for the events that happened in our favourite books, movies, TV shows, and comics. Fanfic isn't part of that unless it's later made canon.
JEB1981
07:32:23 PM Apr 28th 2010
edited by JEB1981
I very much agree with you about that work being non-canon with Sonic and Pokemon, but I ask again - how can something qualify for inclusion in TV Tropes generally but not a specific page in TV Tropes? So long as there's a link following the event to the TV Tropes entry for said work, I would think we have little fear of people assuming it's canon. (I'd be very shocked in particular if they thought Sonichu was canon with anything else.)

Besides, a lot of stuff in this timeline already has a lot of coexisting events that are clearly non-canon with each other (i.e. the many assassinations of JFK in 1963), so what difference is really made by throwing a few fanfic events in there? We could always put a caveat that any fanfic inclusions have to have a TV Tropes page already...
VampireBuddha
09:02:17 AM Apr 30th 2010
edited by VampireBuddha
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you.

In general, simply having a page on TVT is not enough for a series to be mentioned on any other page; it must also fit the trope.

As for the GUT in particular, its purpose is to let people see how the dates for their favourite shows line up with each other, and fanfic simply isn't part of that. Yes, there's all sorts of events in there that aren't canon to each other, but everything is canon for something. Fanfic, however, is not and never has been canon, what with it being fanfic and all.

For example, Rei turning everyone into LCL in 2016? Interesting and relevant. Shinji becoming a god of chaos? Didn't happen in either canon, so possibly interesting, but not relevant.
JEB1981
07:37:06 PM Apr 30th 2010
Sigh. I hate to drag this out, but... the "trope" of this page is basically "these are events that happened in fiction". I don't see where that necessarily excludes fanfic.

Also, declaring that a work is "relevant" sounds a lot like you're talking about "notability". Which in turn requires me to point out that on TV Tropes, There Is no Such Thing as Notability.

Mind you, I'm hardly chomping at the bit to add fanfic events to this timeline (plenty occupied with canon events, thanks), but I don't see why fanfic is "not relevant" for this page but relevant everywhere else on this site.
VampireBuddha
02:12:49 PM May 2nd 2010
I've had a think about it, and really, I can't come up with a logical reason not to include fanfic. It just feels wrong to me.

So how about fanfic is allowed provided it doesn't contradict canon?
robert
04:33:30 PM May 2nd 2010
Including fanfic could easily swamp canon. On other pages, it can be segregated into its own folder, but that doesn't work here. However, we can always prune if it gets out of hand.

I'd say list fanfic events only if they would have been listed were they part of canon. Holding both fanfic and canon to the same standard seems fair enough. Preferably, only use fanfics which have their own trope page, easy enough to create but it means people can easily check what specific fanfic is being referred to, same as they can for published works.
JEB1981
09:28:37 PM May 2nd 2010
That seems quite reasonable to me. I have taken the liberty of editing the page introduction accordingly (but feel free to tweak, obviously).
VampireBuddha
09:47:40 AM May 5th 2010
Can we at least require fanfic entries to be written in red or something to distinguish them?
90.221.125.63
topic
10:21:26 AM Apr 17th 2010
edited by 94.6.255.216
Deleted The Incredibles entries in 1989 and 2004. Edna's reports of some of the Supers' deaths mention the 1950s. That would place the time skip early on (after Dash and Violet were born) at the 70s at the latest.
90.221.125.63
topic
09:58:47 AM Apr 17th 2010
I salute the guy who caught the Tenth Doctor's regeneration actually happened in January 2005. I can't believe I missed that.
90.221.99.187
topic
04:32:15 PM Apr 10th 2010
Red Dwarf's "Backwards" is set in a back-to-front 1993, but apparently it's set so far into the future, that the universe is experiencing the Big Crunch and thus, time is running backwards. I have no idea where that fits, all I do is that Red Dwarf is really confusing when it comes to time travel and physics.
94.5.116.77
topic
09:13:18 AM Apr 10th 2010
"Skynet becomes self-aware, and launches a nuclear attack on the Earth, killing billions."

I love how thanks to Terminator's time travel mechanics, this bit appears in 1997, 2004 AND 2011.
SchizoTechnician
topic
09:31:54 PM Apr 7th 2010
Okay, someone may want to put the LOTR events into more specific dates in the range provided, rather than occuring a millenium before the range just added...
JEB1981
10:24:33 PM Apr 7th 2010
I reassigned and dated the duplicate events (since I made the problem). I'm kinda wary of tackling the stuff before the Years of the Sun, though, since those "years" don't match Earth years. Maybe someone with stronger Tolkien-fu than me can try?
Micah
topic
12:25:18 AM Apr 3rd 2010
edited by Micah
So, we have this in 2004:
  • March 3 - Federal agent Jack Bauer thwarts an attempt to assassinate U.S. Senator and presidential candidate David Palmer. (24)  note

Is there any reason why 24 has to have its elections synched with the real world? The West Wing certainly doesn't...

I'm reluctant to change it since I don't actually know 24 at all, but if there isn't any other evidence out there to the contrary, it sure sounds to me like this entry should go on March 5, 2002.
96.54.101.218
10:13:10 PM Apr 8th 2010
Here's an estimation from the 24 Wikia.

I'd leave it as 2004.
Koveras
topic
01:26:56 AM Mar 18th 2010
Where do the Nanoha dates come from? I couldn't find any canon reference on how the Mid-Childan calender correlates with the Gregorian one but this list seems to assume that Mid-Childa's year 0065 corresponds to AD 2005.
Servbot
06:06:19 PM Apr 2nd 2010
edited by Servbot
First episode of Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha A's shows the date in Hayate's clock as June 3, Friday. Years where that occur are 1994, 2005, and 2011. Since Nanoha A's was broadcasted on 2005...

EDIT: Oh wait, I screwed up. June 3 was shown to be a Saturday. It should be 2006 instead (same reasoning as above since A's ran from 2005-2006). Adjusting. <<
Koveras
01:18:03 AM May 3rd 2010
Alright, seems plausible enough.
90.217.54.50
topic
05:58:18 PM Mar 13th 2010
Does anyone actually know roughly what the events of Countdown were? There was Superboy Prime killing people to death, but apart from that I'm not sure.
triassicranger
topic
08:11:29 AM Mar 12th 2010
edited by triassicranger
TARDIS Wikia states that the Doctor Who production team have stated that "The End Of Time" takes place in 2009, not 2010.
90.217.54.50
topic
04:31:43 PM Mar 8th 2010
Oh, okay, so the YKTTW was only put up in February. Okay, it's actually still pretty impressive. However, what would be considered "notable events" in Doctor Who history for instance? It has over 200 stories now, so yeah.
triassicranger
08:13:50 AM Mar 12th 2010
edited by triassicranger
Also, now that we have two Star Trek timelines (namely one with James T Kirk taking command of the Enterprise earlier than he should), should they even be listed on the same page?
90.217.54.50
01:12:23 PM Mar 12th 2010
I see no reason not to use both timelines. Just clarify that it refers to the 2009 film rather than just "Star Trek".
SpeedySwaf
09:02:31 PM Mar 12th 2010
I've been giving some thought to Doctor Who as well, plus other series that may involve time travel extensively. I'm leaning in the direction that we could include stories that coincide with significant historical events, like Pompeii and the like, plus maybe some future events if they signficantly alter history. (Such as the Earth blowing up, or humanity evolving into a different species, etc.)

What do others think?
90.217.54.50
08:23:54 AM Mar 13th 2010
Maybe ones in the present/near future that heavily change or subvert Like Reality Unless Noted. I'm just worried that I'd get carried away and include every story from the series (the earliest event in the new series is from 4,600,000,000 B.C. and the latest is from 100,000,000,000,000. Even in terms of ones actually set on the Earth's surface this varies from 79 A.D. to 2069 A.D.  to pedants I haven't actually seen very much of the classic series for the record.)
muninn
topic
03:51:10 PM Mar 8th 2010
Should this page have a Just for Fun banner on it? I think it was suggested by the op in YKTTW
ykttw archive back to Main/GrandUnifiedTimeline

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy