Talk:Timeline:Pre-eclipse

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not that it really matters too much right now, but most of those events are sentences and should have periods: (Zahava fights in the IDF., Mr. Bennet is born., Hana vows to avenge her progenitors' deaths, and honor their legacy., etc.) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I know that a lot of them are, but just to make it consistent, I removed the trailing periods. Otherwise, we'd have to make all of the parts complete sentences, and I don't really feel like doing that for that many parts.--Bob 18:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Reference template?

One thing I think might look nice would be a template to format timeline references (quotes, dates on receipts, that sort of thing.) I'm thinking of something like this:

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

That would make them stand out a bit from the rest of the page and make it clearer what they are.--Hardvice (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I'm liking that with the quotes. With pictures, there's only really two pictures that refer to a time table - the receipt and Zane's obituary. I think it'd look cool, but I just don't really know how it could be flexible to handle a thumbnail. Maybe one of y'all know.--Bob 20:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
    • We could just do a text link to the image, like this:
Nathan's hotel bill is dated October 6th.(Hiros)
but then I guess we'd be missing the pictures (unless we put the image in a gallery, too.)--Hardvice (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I tried toying around with different things, I think it looks better the way it is now IMHO. But the quotes definately look a lot better.--Bob 21:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I like the idea of distinguishing the quotational references from the bulleted events, but I'm just not digging the way it looks. I don't have a better suggestion, and I'm not hating the blurby quotes, it's just not my favorite. I wonder if there are any other possibilities. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • It should probably be its own template. The quote template lets us use a quote like an image. These are closer to citations and thus need to be better integrated into the accompanying text. We could make the new template look more like the quote template, however:
"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)
My only concern is that it looks a bit too much like the surrounding text.--Hardvice (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Personally, I think the example above is the best way to go. It looks just enough like the surrounding text to not be distracting, yet the box makes it stand out enough. If you want, we could make the font different, and even make the box rounded. I think it's the blue background that I find a bit ... objectionable.
"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)
Hmm? Hmm? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • To be honest, I could go either way with the larger rounded boxes. But that shape/size is good.--Bob 15:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • How about just enough color to set it apart from the page background?
"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)
I just think the white background on a white background looks awful. It makes it look like Jumble puzzle with one answer circled.--Hardvice (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • That's cool, too. I also wouldn't mind it with a darker outline, if one felt so inclined. I just didn't like the blurb look.
    RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • How's this:
"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)
--Bob 16:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
How about something like this?
Heroe!(talk) 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • That still has a white background. How is it different?--Hardvice (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I like Bob's the best, but maybe with a border that's not so blue
"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)
...but really, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I like the color (I was just adjusting the hex code til it was dark, didn't bother looking at actual color values). And you forgot three pairs.--Bob 21:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Season 2

I know I'm jumping the gun on this, but if the reports are true (I think Kring mentioned it in an interview) that season 2 will cover a lot of history on the characters we've encountered, then this article is going to get messy. Maybe during the break between seasons we can re-structure it by decade or something.--Bob 13:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

  • That's the kind of bridge we need to cross when we get there. Season 2 could jump around a lot in the pre-eclipse history, or it could have six episodes set in October 1964, for example. Which way it goes would determine the changes we'd need to make to this article.--Hardvice (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Definitely. The only reason we made the break at the eclipse is because that's when the main body of events begin occurring. If Season Two jumps around a bunch, we might decide to find a natural breaking point. Or perhaps we lift a certain bloated section that S2 will focus on, and make that its own article. Lord only knows where S2 will take us. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Yeah, looks as if the 17th century might need it's own section> We'll have to see!--Bob 17:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Compared to the other Timeline articles, this one does seem a slight bit long and cumbersome. I think a good split for this article might be made by dividing it thusly: one page beginning at 1584 or earlier and stopping at 1990, the other beginning at 1991 and stopping at September 2006. Does anyone agree? User:SacValleyDweller 14:54, 28 July, 2007 (PDT)
    • I wouldn't mind a split around that time period, but I'd rather wait to see how Season Two progresses, since I believe we're going to find out a lot more about the past. If the storylines focus around one time period in particular, it might make for a more natural break somewhere else. Sure, this article, is long, but it's not as cumbersome as others. I'd just wait to see, personally. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
      • Meh, I can roll with that. My split does seem kinda unnatural when I think about it. SacValleyDweller 19:24, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Sylar's birth

Is there any evidence for Gabriel Gray being born in 1979? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Weren't the Paul E. Sylar scenes cut? I think we should remove the info about Paul E. Sylar's birth as well.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
    • Actually, that's a good point. If this is based on the trivia item on the page for One Giant Leap, then it's important to clarify that that image isn't actually from One Giant Leap--it's an unaired scene from Genesis. It just appears on the page for One Giant Leap because of the room Mohinder and Eden find with the "Forgive Me Father" scribblings.--Hardvice (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Unaired pilot

Since the information from the unaired pilot never aired, it is not part of the Heroes continuity, not part of the timeline, and never actually happened. I want to be very careful about mingling unaired information with aired information. If a date needs to be noted or mentioned, it should be noted on the page set aside for the unaired character, not on a page like the main timeline which lists canon dates from aired episodes and GNs. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Inconsistency?

Thompson hires Noah in 1991... but Ivan trains him in 1989?--Riddler 18:27, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

  • I thought about it too. More than likely, the GN writer messed up, but one can argue that Thompson "welcomed" Bennet to the company in 91, so he may have been training for two years. Plus, Ivan said that he trained both Noah and Claude, but those two were not partners yet. Maybe he's a trainer for the company, idk.--Bob (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

new title

the pre-eclipse title seems a bit outdated--SacValleyDweller 01:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

splits

this was touched on in an above section, but I think we might have to seriously consider some artificial splits in this thing for manageability of the subject mater and overall utility/readability. Proposed pieces derived from the whole:

  • Through 1899
  • 1900-1969
  • 1970-1989
  • 1990-1999
  • 2000-September, 2006

thoughts?--SacValleyDweller 01:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

  • I have a feeling that we're going to find out when that photo was taken, more on the group of twelve and such. So, I think that maybe pre-Vietnam (when Linderman and Petrelli met) might be a good break. I'm not for splitting into that many breaks, but splitting the page in half should suffice.--Bob (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Splits made, but need doors in the portal

I made some splits in this page by copy-pasting bits to some subpages, they just need doors in the portal and navbar. here are the splits: User:SacValleyDweller/Timeline:Through 1967
SacValleyDweller/Timeline:1968-1989
SacValleyDweller/Timeline:1990-September 2006 Do they look OK to be promoted to the big time?--SacValleyDweller (talk to me!) 22:34, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

  • I like the splits you made. They're all even. Rayhond 16:56, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
    • They look fine, but the splits seem a bit arbitrary. Why 1967? Wouldn't 1977 be better? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2007 (EDT)
      • Wanted to keep them kinda short. Bob suggested separating pre and post Vietnam, probably due to the start of Linderman and Mr. Petrelli's friendship/start of Group of Twelve. That split yielded a long post-Vietnam, so I thought a split at about 1990 would keep things short, neat, and clean.--SacValleyDweller (talk to me!) 01:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)
        • But the Company was founded in 77. It's also when Linderman obtained the Kensei sword. 67 was just the year that Dallas and Austin met, not when the group of twelve banded together. Heck, I wouldn't even say that's when Petrelli's and Linderman's friendship began. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)
          • good argument for company era/pre-company era split. That could work too, but those are on the long-ish side. Feel free to make those and implement them, I can roll with them. Just name the two pieces by dates and I'll like them.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)
            • Well, personally, I don't really think there needs to be a split right now. I'm not opposed to one, I just don't think it's necessary. I'm glad you made some subpages, but I really wish you hadn't moved them into the namespace without adequate feedback first. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)
              • I'll remove them then, and wait till about 11:00 PST on 11/10/07 to put them back or no depending on feedback. BTW, what would be the threshold for the split anyway?--SacValleyDweller (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2007 (EST)
                • I'm not opposed to a split, I just don't see a need for it. There's no rule for how many people have to agree, but so far, I've seen more opposition or confusion ([1], [2], [3], [4]) than agreement ([5]). Not everyone has to agree, but there should be a little more support than I'm seeing thus far. And please don't weigh an admin's opinion heavier than a non-admin's (in this capacity, I am a contributor, and stand on the same level as everyone else). I hope I'm not sounding like a bully, that's not my intention. I just want to make sure that more people either agree or don't care. I want to make sure we are working as a community as best we can. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Proper Discussion and vote on a split of this artcle

Vote: Place your sig on your position.

Split
--SacValleyDweller (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Chrisyudbsname.JPGChrisyudbstalk.JPG 03:59, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Dont Split

The Question: Should this long timeline artcle be split, and if so, how much and where? My arguments are in the above sections. Restated, they are that 1) this is geting too long and unwieldy and 2) the eclipse of October is having waining significance on things.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (EST)

  • Split 1977 pre and post (just one split)--Bob (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2007 (EST)
    • If it's going to be split, I think 1977 is a natural place. However, I don't think it really needs to be split. I'm not against it if it happens, but I'm not for it, either. This is not a regular narrative article. It's a reference article which most people access by links with jumps. I don't think the length really matters, personally. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2007 (EST)
      • I should have rephrased that, but exactly my thoughts. I never really thought it needed to be split, but if it seems that splitting is popular, then 1977 should be the date of one split versus the multiple splits.--Bob (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2007 (EST)
      • Actually, that's a really good point: how many jump links are we talking about? They'll have to be updated manually. Have we even considered that yet?--Hardvice (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2007 (EST)
        • There are actually a ton of links which would need to be manually updated if this page is split.--Hardvice (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2007 (EST)
      • Also, why is there already a "vote" for something that hasn't been adequately discussed (or really discussed at all, or apparently even really thought through all that well?)--Hardvice (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2007 (EST)
        • I think some people just aren't very patient.--Bob (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2007 (EST)
  • Split 1977 Chrisyudbsname.JPGChrisyudbstalk.JPG 03:59, 5 November 2007 (EST)

1977

Just occurred to me after putting the Miami snow note that Bob brought up. A lot of stuff happened in 77, like the New York blackouts, insulin is made using bacteria, Star Wars opens. So many things, man.--Bob (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2007 (EST)

decision on the split

Because of the ton of links that would need to be updated, performing the split at the 1977 year-mark might best be saved for the winter/strike-lengthened hiatus when there is less/nothing to document. On my impatience for getting this done, I apologize. My state of mind then was gung-ho for this and agitated/frustrated elsewhere in my life. The template is now removed. I shall perform that split (with the updating of the links and hopefully with the help of others) during the hiatus and coinciding winter break. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2007 (EST)

  • No worries. I didn't think of it as impatience as much as eagerness. It's not a bad thing to want to improve the site, and I would hate for you to think that anybody is discouraging you from looking at pages with a constructively critical eye. However, this is just one of those changes that should be discussed first so we have consensus, we think it through thoroughly, and we work together as a community. I'm still not convinced the split needs to happen, but I'm glad you've raised the issue. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)
  • Exactly what Ryan said. You did an awesome job splitting them and it was a good idea, since the pages are long. But yeah, any time we have to update 400 links, it's gonna be a hefty project.  :) Definitely bring it up once we hit hiatus or the season ends, whichever happens first.--Hardvice (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Claire's brith

  • "The Odessa Register (February 28th edition) reports that the Odessa fire takes place this day. It is reported that 7 people are killed, including Meredith Gordon and her 18-month-old daughter. (The Fix)"

Can we assume that Claire was born in August, 1990? Chrisyudbsname.JPGChrisyudbstalk.JPG 05:12, 19 November 2007 (EST)

    • Assuming anything where Claire's age is concerned would lead to ruin. See here and the Notes on Claire Bennet. There are many, many conflicting canon source reports--the most recent of which is that her birthday is "next month" in Four Months Later..., which would put it in April.--Hardvice (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2007 (EST)
      • I would venture to say that there is no date--nay, no piece of information--which is more disputed and contradicted than Claire's birthday. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)
        • I'd say three things are plausible to explain the inconstancy, and every one of them could could be true:
          1) the documents were lost in the fire,
          2) the company never bothered to do any digging on the matter,
          3) Noah was told an arbitrarily date to hand to Claire as her Bday with no one knowing or letting on that they know the real date.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
          • ...or the writers just never pinned down a date and have forgotten what they've said in the past. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (EST)

split revisit

So, above I made the decision to wait until now to split this. When I originally brought this up I was in an enthusiastic (here), aggravated, and depressed (last two outside of the wiki) state. Now, I have final Projects and finals in the way of performing the split. So, I shall reopen the debate on the split. come December 14 or so, when school obligations will be over with, debate shall close and I'll perform the split if the consensus leans that way. The vote is below, and please debate reasons below that in the subsections.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)

  • I'm sorry you were ever depressed over something that happened on the site. There's no reason to take anything personally--in fact, I recall really appreciating your eagerness to help keep the site maintained, and your contributions have consistently been high quality. But, as I hope you've since realized, the comments on the talk pages are rarely directed at the contributor, but rather at the page. And so I give my opinion on the page, and I hope you don't take it personally...This is a reference page, not a narrative page. I'm not opposed to a split, but I just don't see the need for it. Most of the links to this page are jumps directly to the appropriate section. I personally think the page is fine as it is. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (EST)
    • the above incident causing the aggravation and depression? No! It aggravated the condition slightly, but I know no ad hominems were taking place, nothing personal was taken by any means ;)! The causes were external, non-wiki things that I dont want to discuss, which i'm still paying for due to my lack of school motivation I had during the time. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (EST)
  • It is slightly longish, and we do have a significant, non-arbitrary date to use: the Company's founding in 1977 (evidently prior to February 14th). I wouldn't be opposed to that split, particularly if we can get the bot to update the bulk of the jump links (not sure how feasible that is, since it will need to know if a date (in any of various formats) is before or after the split date). I don't think an arbitrary split is warranted, though -- we had a good reason for using the Eclipse as a cut-off date, so we'd need a good reason to use any other.--Hardvice (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (EST)
    • If a cutoff point is needed, 1977 is a pretty good one. I'm not opposed to a split, I just don't see the need, even with a slightly longish page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)
    • What Ryan said.--Bob (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
      • Keep in mind, if we get more events that would go in this page, it will only get harder and more tedious to split if it needs a split, and I'll betchya dollars to donuts more events will come. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Vote

SacValleyDweller (talk) votes for a split somewhere 02:38, 10 December 2007 (EST)

3 way split (please name the dates when voting)

2 way split: pre 1977 and 1977 to sept 2006
--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (EST)

No split
--Prefer this one, but should a split be made, do two-way split at 1977. Bob (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Debate

  • Just to summarize some of the things that I agree with that were stated above:
    • 1) Fixing the spans throughout the site would require a substantial amount of work
      • A bot should be able to fix links throughout the wiki
      • Future breaks may be messier if we continue to split
    • 2) Since this is a reference article, length should not be an issue
      • It could become cumbersome to navigate through the article if the article is very long

I think that's about all the major points.--Bob (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)

  • I just had to do a quick bit of research on a particular event since I wasn't sure exactly what year the event happened. So I did a text search on this page. It occurred to me that if we split the page, it's just an extra (unnecessary) step to searching. It's nice to have these events all on the same page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (EST)
    • Another thing that I have against this page's length is that it is not conducive to a quick glance-through, recreational, or get-a-sense-of-things browse. It really only serves as a back-citation-type reference entity. if we dont split, can we somehow demote the existing subsections and group each decade back to 1960's, plus 1900-1959, and pre 1900 into heading 2's, kinda like this?:

==Pre 1900== ===1671=== ===1777=== ==1900-1959== ===1910=== ==1960's== ===1968=== (some omissions made to convey the general gist of things) then maybe make the TOC collapsible according to those level 2 headers?

  • That could work. I would be concerned about all the jumps. For instance, if we change the subsections into bold headings, then February 14, 1977 wouldn't jump to the right section but to the top of the page. The way to fix this is to put in id spans, which would look something like this:
==1976==
* [[Jessica Sanders]] is born.  (''[[Episode:Six Months Ago|Six Months Ago]]'')
* [[D.L. Hawkins]] is born. (''[[Kindred]]'')

==1977==
* [[The Company]] is founded by [[group of twelve|several individuals]]. (''[[Four Months Later...]]'')
* [[Daniel Linderman]] claims to own [[Kensei's sword]]. (''[[Sword Saint]]'')
* [[The Company]] made last contact with [[Richard Drucker]]. (''[[Heroes Evolutions]]'')
* [[The Company]] conducts research on power-supressing vaccine. (''[[Four Months Ago...]]'')

<span id=February 14, 1977>'''February 14, 1977'''</span>
* [[Victoria Pratt]] discovers a [[Shanti virus|virus]] in [[Shanti|a young girl]]. (''[[Truth and Consequences|Truth & Consequences]]'')

<span id=October 1977>'''October 1977'''</span>
* [[Kaito Nakamura]], [[Victoria Pratt]], and [[Adam Monroe]] pose for a photograph. (''[[Truth and Consequences|Truth & Consequences]]'')

<span id=November 2, 1977>'''November 2, 1977'''</span>
* [[Adam Monroe]] is imprisoned by [[the Company]] under [[Kaito Nakamura]]'s orders. (''[[Truth and Consequences|Truth & Consequences]]'')

It'd take a bit of work, but a bit of f&r would help, and it would solve the problem. However, if the issue is the TOC, I'd rather add limit= to tocright. That would still give us about 50 sections. If you'd rather force the sections, we could use some invisible level 1 sections using <span id="YEAR RANGE"><div style="display:none;">. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (EST)

  • Actually, if it's a TOC issue, the easiest way to do it is to hide the TOC, and add our own. I'll work on something right now. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (EST)
    • Okay, I added template:pre-eclipse toc which basically just lists each century, and then the decades for the 20th Century since there are so many years. I also added a couple of span ids so the jumps work. I like it--I prefer the smaller TOC and the century divisions makes for easier navigation. But I created the thing, so I'm hardly impartial. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)
      • I like the new TOC; nicely done, Ryan! I still think the page should be split though, cause no page should be excessively long, imho.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (EST)

stale discussion

We've had the discussion open about splitting this timeline for quite awhile. Personally I don't see the point since it's primarily a reference article (as opposed to a narrative article) accessed mainly by jumps to specific sections. But that's just me--I know others feel differently. Anyway, if there's not much more interest in the debate, we should probably remove this article from being nominated for a split. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)

  • I agree. It looks fine for now. If it becomes unwieldy in the future we can reconsider it. But, for now it doesn't seem to be an issue. -- Lulu (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

More specific than a decade?

How about 2589-2566 BC? ;) This may have been discussed before, but I never liked how things were removed from the timelines just because they had a general or approximate date, but I couldn't think of how to disagree. I think we need a way to list events that don't have a specific date, I don't mean things like having a birth date because someone looks 30ish or things like that, but when a time period is mentioned. I don't know if they will give a more specific date for when Daniel Linderman returned from Vietnam (someone else might), but I think what they gave us (early 70s) is good enough. If not maybe we could have "Other Events in ##" or something like that. -Lөvөl 12:06, 28 February 2008 (EST)

  • I think "Other 1970s Events" or something like that might not be a bad choice--I'd be curious to see what it looked like. As for the BC dates, I've never really liked the way it was written, but since it was such an oddball date, I didn't really care too much. I'd much rather see something like 2589 BC: Construction on the Great Pyramid begins. 2566 BC: The Great Pyramid's construction is finished. Those are just my thoughts. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Plot Hole with regards to the events of Wireless and The Death of Hana Gitelman

I was scanning trough this and I notice that we, somehow, determined that Hana was drafted in August 2006. We then have an event that transpired during her training listed as happening in 2005. these two events are cited as happening in Wireless, Part 1 and The Death of Hana Gitelman, Part 1, respectively. Big Problem. Is there any chance that we could reinterpret those arcs to rectify this? --SacValleyDweller (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

  • In the Death of Hana Gitelman, Part 1, Hana refers to a time in training "last year at the top of the world". In that novel, the current storytime "now" is assumed to be "November 4-5, 2006", cause that's when Hana, Ted, Matt, and Bennet meet, and Bennet sends her on the quest to take out the Company's satellite. A year earlier means sometime in 2005, so that date looks correct. In Wireless, Part 1, being at the embassy after the Tanzania mission is the the now of the novel, and it has several dates:
    • the Six-Day War (June 1967) as 39 years ago (listed as 1967 in Wireless, Part 1)
    • Bennet's capture of her as two months prior
    • Her grandmother's imprisonment as 62 years ago (listed as 1944 in Wireless, Part 1)
    • 17 years ago, when her mom and grandmother were killed (listed as 1989 in Wireless, Part 1)
  • Thus, we assumed the "August" month came from the Six-Day War being in June, but the novels were not so precise. The Tanzania mission could have taken place either Jan-Feb 2006 and the years would be okay. Of course, it does mean we have to move Hana's recruitment date to be Nov-Dec 2005, and thus the "Arctic event" Hana refers to would need to occur in Nov-Dec 2005. Is that agreeable?--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
    • Perfect for me! Anything that puts her recruitment to the Company before the Arctic incident will work. --SacValleyDweller (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
      • I'm giving this another day before moving the months, just in case someone missed this discussion.--MiamiVolts (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
        • Ok, I've made the moves using "After October 31, 2005" and "Before March 1, 2006" as headers.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Doyle's capture

The first page of the "Doyle" graphic novel states that Doyle was locked up "two years ago" (i.e. 2005) but then two pages later, October 2006 is labeled as being "two years later," which would mean Doyle was locked up in 2004. Any thoughts? - Only3Penguins

  • It might just be a rough estimation. Doyle might have been captured in Jan 2005 to Oct 2006, which is close to 2 years. In a normal conversation, you would, for example, say "I did that last month." It might not be exactly one month though. Few weeks, or more than that. --JLYK 16:11, 1 May 2009

Ishi Nakamura's death

Uh oh, after adding the details of Ishi Nakamura's meeting with 2007 Hiro and her death, I noticed that we have three mentions of her death in three different years: 1990 from Cautionary Tales, 1991 from extrapolating "16 years ago" from the present in 2007, and 1992 which I guess is the date of the Odessa Register which mentions the fire in which Meredith and Claire supposedly died. Was the date of Ishi's funeral actually mentioned in Cautionary Tales? If not then I guess Our Father trumps the other dates. --Gothzilla 18:33, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Ishi dies twice.

Ishi Nakamura dies twice according to this timeline. Once in 1990 when we see her funeral and again in 1991 which we see in Our Father.

Just saying.

FreemDeem 19:40, 12 December 2008 (EST)

  • We move the funeral to after her death, then. Just a small inconsistency with the title cards present in the episode, we we could say Hiro was estimating when he said 17 years ago in Cautionary Tales.--Citizen 19:47, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Actually 3 times, 1990 sees ehr funeral, 1991 sees her die fomr giving the catalyst once then in 1992 its written again.--345tom 13:35, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Right Ok, that needs sorting out right? (If it hasn't been done already.) FreemDeem 15:11, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Adam Monroe: Immortal Idiot

Anyone else find it kind of ridiculous that it took Adam Monroe 108 years to realize he didn't age?--Kooliki 00:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

  • Yes. It's a timeline goof. See here, where Chuck Kim says, "I'm going to say that it was very hard to keep accurate historical records back then. Ultimately, he didn't realize what his powers were until after he met Hiro. So I would say that there is some historical inaccuracy there." -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Ando's Calendar

At the very least, the first time we see Hiro and Ando in Genesis, it would appear it is actually SEPTEMBER 2006. Look carefully in the background of Ando's cubicle when Hiro first walks over. The first week has two dates listed at the end of the week (Friday, Sep. 1 and Saturday, Sep. 2). The second week is entirely comprised of single-digit dates (September 3 - 9), and the month appears to end on a Saturday (Saturday, Sep. 30). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (EST)

  • Yes, I checked it Ricard, it is really there, nice catch :) By the way I'm also rewatching Heroes for the timeline as you mentioned in the Patroller's page. May be we can help each other (though I've have a limited timeframe because of real world duties). Did you see this, a template that me and IHH were preparing for the timeline calculations? And I'd open a group outside HW, it's here. Take a look if you want, it's very useful. -- Jan Rodrigo (talk) (contributions) 09:58, 3 December 2009 (EST)

The Awful Eighties

So apparently, the 1980s was the "Awful Parents" decade. Samson sells Gabriel to Martin then murders his own wife in 1980. Maury abandons Matt in 1982. Presumably around 1986, Angela has the Haitian wipe Nathan's memories after Kelly Houston's death. Jessica dies in 1987, presumably as a result of beatings by Hal. By the end of 1990, Elle is being regularly tortured to maximize her ability. Hoo boy. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (EST)

  • Lol you're right-- Yoshi | Talk | Contributions 17:24, 8 February 2010 (EST)
    • And Noah joins the Company, forced to marry Sandra. ~~IHHTalk 18:07, 8 February 2010 (EST)
      • after having his wife and unborn child murdered. --mc_hammark 18:09, 8 February 2010 (EST)
        • By a man who looks an awful lot like a younger "Father of the Year 1980" (as added above). --Ricard Desi (t,c) 18:58, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Inconsistency?

Shouldn't this be called Timeline talk:Pre-eclipse like episode talk, graphic novel talk, etc.? --Boycool Two little mice fell in a bucket of cream. The first mouse quickly gave up and drowned. The second mouse wouldn't quit. He struggled so hard that eventually he churned that cream into butter and crawled out. Amen. 08:32, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

  • No. "Timeline" is not a namespace. "Episode" and "Graphic Novel" are namespaces. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

Descrepency re: Noah Bennet's file sheet August 8, 2004

What I find interesting, and I have studied the sheet repeatedly via screen cap is the date August 8, 2004 as when Ian was tagged with a GPS microchip. Claude was no longer with the Comapny then. Noah shot and nearly killed him in 1999. While he may have been involved earlier in monitoring Ian, it was probably Rene the Haitian with Noah by that point who actually put the Microchip in place.Tarot 07:51, 9 January 2011 (EST)

  • Right. So the file sheet probably has a mistake in it when it lists Claude's name. Wouldn't be the first time! :) I guess it's possible that Claude could have come back to the company ... but more than likely it's just an oversight by somebody like Christina Haberkern, who was not a full-time employee of the show, and whose work for the show was probably not quality checked as much as, say a script, or prop that would receive more screen time. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (EST)