Forum:CT Archive/BBY/ABY vs. GrS

I've recently been going through the articles on years and I've found some problems with the way years are written on WP. The way it currently is, the events of each year that happened from Month 1 to Month 12 are placed in the same BBY/ABY article, the only exceptions being 0 BBY (the three months leading up to the Battle of Yavin) and 0 ABY (the other nine months). However, according to Nathan Butler (in the context of having worked with Leland Chee on The Essential Atlas and not the fan-made SWTG) this is patently incorrect. Apparently, the BBY/ABY system is different from the GrS calendar in that it actually is relative to 3:3 (Month 3, Day 3) of each year, and wouldn't include the first two months of the same calendar year. Basically, 1 ABY isn't just another name for Year 36 as we currently treat it. My suggestions:
 * Move around the events in each year so everything from 1:1 to 3:2 falls into the preceding BBY/ABY year. This would require moving a lot of events and verifying a lot of dates, and some recalculation.
 * Retitle all year articles to their equivalent GrS year. This would require quite a bit of renaming and a significant amount of calculation on nearly every new article, as well as necessitating the use of a dating system that is infrequently mentioned at best in most sources.
 * Keep things as they are. This would require deliberately ignoring part of canon for the sake of convenience.

As you can probably see, it's not an easy decision. Any other suggestions would be welcome. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 03:45, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Maybe I didn't explain this well enough: BBY/ABY is canon. But the point is that saying that 36:1:1 is part of 1 ABY is not. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 04:45, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Move the dates

 * 1) Most readers (myself included) still cannot get the whole GrS stuff.  Mauser  Comlink 04:17, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Canon is canon. And it's not that complicated. Havac 23:35, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Changing my vote because no one seems to understand the options here. We have a statement that falls under WP canon policy that makes sense with existing material. All this would call for is moving the dates that are specifically dated between 1:1 and 3:2 on each year article. We wouldn't move anything else and no speculation would be involved. We would just be changing the current erroneous interpretation of BBY/ABY to the one observed by Licensing. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 04:51, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm only rarely a Wookieepedian, but you know where my opinion lies: intellectual honesty over factually incorrect entrenchment. (And I think this is my first consensus vote ever. Heh.) NathanPButler 01:10, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) It's not often that I'm swayed to change my vote, but Nathan Butler's reasoning makes perfect sense&mdash;despite my personal preference for the BBY/ABY system. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 01:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Now that actual substantial proof has been provided in that Star Wars blog link Butler posted, I'm more than happy to support this, because this is the "indisputable canon evidence" I was referring to in my original opposition comment. Which is worth a lot more than just saying "Person A worked with Person B on Project Pineapple," which is worth pretty much nothing without this kind of official comment to physically link to. And for the record, Butler, after reading your earlier posts in that thread, I don't think you give the voters of this community, and more specifically this individual voting forum, enough credit. To quote you, "which seems to be an issue that has developed along the lines of personal opinions about what people wish were true, rather than what simply is true on an official level." The opposition to this proposal has nothing to do with personal preference of one dating system over the other. It's about the burden of proof being on the presenter of this proposal and waiting for that presenter to provide actual canon evidence (such as a link to an official comment made by a real VIP), and not just taking him at his word that someone said something is a certain way. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:25, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *(Is it fine to reply in this way? Again, I don't tend to use the talk pages much.) My comment was based more upon the fact that this issue has been discussed ad nauseum since the release of the Atlas, if not before. Whomever made the original decision to simply swap out year numbers from "BBY/ABY" for the digital calendar did so in error, yet that error was being held to and argued (in various forums) as if it were fact, not because there was any actual evidence to support it (in fact, all evidence and logic pointed against it), but because those who accepted it unquestionably as fact argued that their "fact" was not incorrect unless proven otherwise. I could easily say, for example, that my neighbor's dog is a mix of two breeds, rather than a pure bred terrier. If I was wrong in the first place and based this "fact" on my own incorrect assumptions, then it is unreasonable for me, when presented with the logic and circumstances of the dog's actual bloodline, to continue to hold to my original, erroneous belief, simply because that's what I've believed all along. That, frankly, is how many are treating the dating system issue. I considered that same attitude to be present here, as what appears (or appeared) to be being debated was "Do we change things or do we keep things the same," rather than "do we correct our error or do we let the error continue to propagate?" The former is a matter of choosing between two equally valid options, but that isn't what the options are here. The latter, which is the case here, is in choosing between accuracy and inaccuracy, and the notion that many seem(ed) to be favoring inaccuracy over accuracy out of a sense that those earlier incorrect "facts" must be true is something I simply find mind-boggling, as I find it particularly intellectually dishonest. I certainly hope it was a matter of people not understanding the logic behind the LFL position. For the record, NOTHING about that position has changed, yet now, with a small amount of new evidence upon a pile of already exhibited evidence and logic, all of a sudden, people are saying, "Oh, it makes sense now." There should not have been a need for me to have to email Leland to help put the issue to rest today. It should have been a matter of pointing out a logical and factual error, and then that error being dealt with. (My apologies if my tone is more petulant than I mean for it to be. I'm fighting a migraine right now, and it sometimes tends to make me more "short" than warranted.) NathanPButler 02:35, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) **Ironically enough, now I think you're giving us too much credit. I don't know about anyone else, but for me at least, the GrS dating system is confusing at best, and I've never really given it the time of day to sit down and actually figure out what it all means in relation to the BBY/ABY system until today. You refer to a mountain of previous canon evidence existing that supports the idea behind this proposal that you apparently have stockpiled someplace, as if we're all supposed to know about this and magically be able to call it to mind to be able to make a decision on this vote. You'll excuse me if I don't know every facet of Star Wars canon inside and out. And that is the point. Wookieepedia operates on one basic overriding principle: Either verify the information you present, or get it out of here. And that's all I've ever asked for in this forum. Show me the proof that this is how this system works (by linking to a VIP comment, for example), or I'm not just jumping on board with it. I don't think anyone in this opposition vote has called this proposal "wrong" or "factually inaccurate." We just demand verifiable proof, as we do for anything. And please don't lump the legions of morons you refer to who have infested the SW.com boards to discuss this dating confusion "ad nauseum," as you describe it, with the regular editors of Wookieepedia. Please show our own individual community the respect it deserves. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:50, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) ***I absolutely agree on the necessity of verification. That is what will keep Wookieepedia (or my SWT-G, or any other resource) valid and useful to fellow fans. However, with that said, I have to ask: If accepting the way the BBY/ABY system actually works (rather than the misconception) requires that the information must have "verifiable proof" and be verified or "out of here," then why didn't the original incorrect assumption that placed Months 1 and 2 in the incorrect BBY/ABY time span require the same verification and factual backing before it became the Wookieepedia standard and propagated that incorrect information? Shouldn't that assumption have undergone the same level of scrutiny? NathanPButler 02:58, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) ****As far as I know, we dated this information on our wiki based on linking the "years" of both dating systems together. "38" being the same as "3 ABY," or what have you, and anything with the "38" in it we automatically placed in 3 ABY, and so forth. We didn't factor the months into our decision at all, not knowing any better. That's about it. We kept with the system we believed to be most correct without any further clarification to be had. And keep in mind, this is probably all information that was originally added into the wiki two and three years ago, when a good portion of users, including myself, were not around yet. As the wiki grows, so too does our standards and quality. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:10, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Changing vote per evidence provided by Mr. Butler. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:04, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Mr. Butler. We should also remove all GrS dates where we don't have solid evidence of which side of the calendar they fall on. jSarek 07:26, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Mr. Butler.  Grunny  ( Talk ) 07:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Nathan Butler, both here and on the official forums. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith  -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 12:30, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) As I understand it, this option would still let us provide ABY/BBY dates (or even the ATC/BTC dates) in cases where that's all we have. It would only affect the handful of dates where we have the month and we know it's before Space-March 2nd. Plus, canon, yay. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 12:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) *Space-March? I love it! Now if only we could make *that* canonical! Perfectly Star Wars-y campy! NathanPButler 16:18, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) I didn't actually care about this issue until I realized that opposing this change would mean undermining canon. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 13:41, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:17, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Jedi Beacon ) 17:28, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) This is the right move, but holy crap, what a mess we've got now. ESPECIALLY with the Clone Wars in limbo. Dangerdan97 19:25, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 21)  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 19:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) It'll be a pain, but hey, canon is canon. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 22:05, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) The logic is sound, but I'm holding my nose. But for the record, I sincerely believe that Chee and Butler have opened a HUGE can of worms that should have remained closed. The year systems should have been mapped out one for one to make things as simple as possible; that way, authors, fans, and we could do the conversions relatively easily. Instead, we get this weird months-long stagger that just makes the whole mess unworkable and virtually useless. In the end, though, canon is canon, and we don't get to pick and choose what parts of it we'll accept and which parts we'll reject. Sheesh. This makes me cringe. ~ SavageBob 23:46, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) *Precisely what can of worms did Leland and I somehow open? This is something that has been the case from the get-go. The "can of worms" is that Wookieepedia somehow interpreted the dating systems wrong ages ago, and that mistake was perpetuated. Absolutely NOTHING new has emerged with regard to how the digital and BBY/ABY relative dating systems work in relation to one another. It has been, and remains, both workable and usable, (as opposed to "unworkable and virtually useless") to anyone who actually takes the time to understand what has been the case (minus the 10-to-12 conversion as of 2002 and recently) since 1991 or earlier. I take offense to the idea that somehow because someone in Wookieepedia's past screwed up and people came to accept that screwed up version of reality that somehow introducing longstanding correct information into the discussion is somehow negatively "opening a can of worms" to somehow render things "unworkable and virtually useless." NathanPButler 21:19, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) **Because it would have made everyone's jobs easier if the Powers that Be had simply decreed that "despite the fact that the Battle of Yavin was in the third month of the year, the New Republic decreed that the year of the Battle of Yavin would forever more be declared 0 BBY/0 ABY, from the first month to the last month." Instead, we've got this clunky notion that ABY years must zero out on the third month. It's difficult to manage, it's counter-intuitive. Leland could have made a different decree; he didn't, and we're stuck with the kludge until some other source declares otherwise. ~ SavageBob 02:55, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) ***Three items in that regard. First, it wasn't that the BBY/ABY calendar was later tacked onto the GrS calendar. It's the other way around. The GrS was "flavor text" numbering, added into the WEG materials, which pinned ANH down in the Adventure Journal, in "March" rather than "January" for realism. If anything, it was the GWNN article that is the culprit, not anything with the BBY/ABY system. All of this was already in place well before Leland came around. Basically, to reset the "Zero" of BBY/ABY to Month 1, Day 1, to coincide with the GrS would have invalidated all of the previous GrS dates and/or ended up placing the other films much farther into a their respective years than workable, unless those dates were utterly wiped out too. Were that the case, it would simply have made more sense to entirely get rid of the GrS dating in favor of BBY/ABY only. Second, as Leland reiterated the other day, the BBY/ABY system is a "dating system," NOT a calendar. It is not meant to be utilized the same way that a normal calendar would. It's a timeline, a number line, a "relative dating system," whatever you want to call it. No matter when ANH takes place within a year, any dates relative to it would build from that date. That's how it, frankly, has always been, which leads to... Third, I once again am not seeing the reason why you've made the claim that Leland and I have somehow "opened a can of worms" by simply repeating facts that have been the same for over a decade and a half. You're basically making the argument that you would have preferred that Wookieepedia's incorrect information were the way things were. That's all well and good as a personal opinion, but to cast aspersions on Leland or me because reality didn't conform to your wishes on this issue is patently absurd and, frankly, unfair. NathanPButler 03:48, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) ****I think part of the point SavageBob is trying to make is that this distinction between a "dating system" and a "calendar" is either not that useful or is very unfamiliar. We are all familiar with calendars and (I believe) it would have been more intuitive to have marked things by the calendar year. 4ABY to be the fourth year after that of the Battle of Yavin, rather than four years after the month. While this spectrum makes sense close to the battle, it makes little sense to mark 25 ABY as 25 years after the month of the battle, let alone something like 140 ABY. I can live with it, and accept this is the way canon has gone, but it still seems an unnecessary complication. -- 04:05, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) *****Thanks, Eyrezer. That's exactly it: not using BBY/ABY as a calendar system is counter-intuitive and complicated. The best choice, yes, in my opinion, would have been to map the two systems out one to one. I'm not sure why you're taking such offense to my comments, Nathan. I think something more elegant would be more helpful. You're a nuts-and-bolds dates kinda guy, or at least that's my impression of you from your timeline site. Maybe this system makes sense to you and you can use it without thinking too much. For me, a cultures and humanities kinda guy, this is a headache. I think we humanities types get lost in the shuffle a bit sometimes, so, yes, I'm stating my opinion (that you two are right), but I'm still holding my nose. ~ SavageBob 04:55, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) ******There you go. That's what wasn't clear. The offense taken was at the phrasing, perhaps. It certainly seemed as though you were asserting that somehow Leland, or I, or both, came up with this new dating system out of the blue and have thus caused some kind of new major headache for people because of it, as if this wasn't how things were pre-Chee/pre-Holocron or as if it were his/my/our idea, rather than us simply describing what has been the case for a very long while. That's where the offense came from. For what it's worth, I agree on the point that it would have been much easier (yet not as realistic) to have simply had ANH start out a new calendar year, even if it might seem odd for a major event to happen to have been around the turn of a new year. It would have saved a lot of headaches in the years after that decision. Still, though, it is what it is, so now we're basically stuck with it, and intellectual honesty, which you certainly support in your comments, does require us to remember what "is" versus what we wish were the case as some try to do. NathanPButler 16:15, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) ******merging the two systems intoone would be creating a fanon dating system. BBY / ABY is a relative dating system created to help readers understand the concept of "when" (oh, this and this happened 9 years after the original movie), while GrS is used by in-universe characters. Since we're an encyclopia, we should help readers and fans rahter than non-existant, in-universe characters tell time. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 13:22, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) *******That's why I voted for the option you outlined, as inelegant as it may be. ~ SavageBob 15:39, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) I am only changing my vote since we now have an official source that gives us this information and provided that we follow the suggestion that Mr. Butler offered on said source: "Personally, if I were making the call, I'd probably go with the BBY/ABY as the standard for Wookieepedia, then have side references to the GS dates only when there was something specifically pinned down." I do not support moving all our year articles to the GrS system. We have a way in the infobox to provide the GrS dates as well as a common practice of providing the exact dates in parenthesis. I will not support a mass moving of dates because BBY/ABY is also canon. &mdash;  Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:53, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) *The reason behind this suggestion, by the way, is simple: the Great Resynch dating system was created as a bit of flavoring for the WEG RPG years ago. It was never meant to be the standard in how we date Star Wars stories. The BBY/ABY relative dating system was for that purpose, in line with the BSW4/ASW4 terminology approved even earlier in the era of the Guide to the Star Wars Universe, 2nd Ed. by Slavicsek. To assume the Great Resynch calendar should be the standard for any resource, rather than BBY/ABY, is like ordering a nice steak with a baked potato and considering the baked potato to be the lion's share of the meal. It's a backward way of looking at a complementary concept. NathanPButler 21:19, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) **Not if you're a vegetarian, or in a more relevant context, someone who prefers having fictional data points modified for the convenience of real people, rather than vice versa. Dangerdan97 03:54, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) ***Star Wars isn't made for you or any specific type of person. Lucas Entertainment doesn't make books with convenience in mind, which is why there are so many contradictions, super-powered abilities, and silly plots and characters. Also, you didn't get Nathan's analogy. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 13:15, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) ****Quite! (heh) The anology meant, frankly, that if one were to focus on the digital calendar from the Great Resynch info, it would be focusing on a tangential, complementary, little "add-on" way of dating, rather than the primary form of dating that is, and has been, the main mode SW (via LFL) uses. It's having a motorcycle with a sidecar and thinking the part that should be most prominent in terms of mechanical complexity and focus of upkeep attention should be the sidecar, not the motorcycle itself. (See, that's not nearly as apt an analogy as the steak and potato were.) Heck, even the Holocron uses BBY/ABY dates generally (in decimals that denote tenths of a year, generally, as necessary), rather than the GrS dating system (though it does include those dates if they happen to exist). NathanPButler 16:20, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) *****Why exactly wasn't a forum post by a Star Wars VIP in direct contact with Leland Chee considered an official source before, Fiolli? — Milo Fett [Comlink] 17:37, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) **Mr. Butler: With all due respect, you've taken my usage of your quote out of context and misinterpreted my remarks. I admit, I am on the verge of striking this vote and returning to opposition based upon the way things are headed in the extrapolated discussions (which by the way are not entirely warranted and should actually be contained to the discussion section, but I digress&hellip;). I am saying that since BBY/ABY is canon, we should still keep the articles where they are and not move them. I have no care what LFL decides to use within its sources and stories. I happen to be all in favor of adding "flavor" to the universe, in fact. My issue is that we are talking about an overhaul of a system that is in place on the ill-speculative merit that somehow our article names are currently wrong. That is not the case. 0 BBY appears in numerous canon sources. Numerous. The article title 0 BBY is not a non-canon name. The information within the article may need to be shifted, however. Actually, 0 BBY is a poor example because the shift, according to everything I have ever read about this, only effects ABY dates because 0 BBY is not a full year according to all available sources. If this option, as explained to me, is to keep our articles where they are but to shift some of the information as necessary, then I am fine with it&mdash;as long as the information can be confirmed and cited upon being moved. If this option is to rename all our articles and keep redirects from various BBY/ABY pages, however, then I have absolutely no support for this in any way and will immediately change my vote. 19:31, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) ***I have no idea who I'm responding to here, so it is hard to tell where or in what form I misinterpreted an individual's remarks. In any event, if the issue is renaming of Wookieepedia pages versus redirects, I have little opinion, as I consider that an internal organizational issue. With regard to 0 BBY/ABY, though, bear in mind that 0 BBY and 0 ABY are two different time spans if you're trying to use them as year names. 1 BBY and 1 ABY don't start until a year in either direction from ANH, so the first year before or after ANH would be 0 BBY or 0 ABY, respectively (though better referred to in decimals, months, weeks, or days, rather than in just trying to name a year). NathanPButler 21:45, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) ****I think this is just some kind of misunderstanding. You (Fiolli) seem to be advocating keeping things the way they are because you don't like one of the alternatives. I agree that renaming every year article would be unwieldy and it was just one solution I could think of. Nothing is wrong with the article names. This option is just to move the dates. Naturally, moved dates would have to be properly cited, but they should be already. Also, do you have a source stating that 0 BBY/ABY are part of the same year? — Milo Fett [Comlink] 23:12, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) *****Mr. Butler: My apologies for leaving my post unsigned earlier. That said, I am not advocating one system or one alternative method of dating over the other. I simply want clarity in what is being voted upon since there is more than rampant confusion and I would contend that half of the people who have voted in this CT are at least partially uninformed. I will say that there is a serious continuity breach, then, with the GrS and BBY/ABY line up to my understanding. This needs to be clarified for the sake of the community, and I believe the community does not fully understand the shift that is expected to take place here. Now, Milo: At the risk of offending you or encroaching upon WP:NPA, I must say that it is apparent that you have not read my posts above or below well enough to make such a charge. I simply want this right. That is it. I have no agenda with this or a bias about the alternatives other than a complete renaming of the article names. That is it. I would rather we use exact dates, if they exist. In fact, I want that! I want accuracy! I simply want to make sure it is done right and I feel that we are not on the verge of doing so. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) *****I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were biased or simply liked one system more. I just thought that your posts implied that you initially supported keeping the status quo because option 2 was impractical--but your reasoning sounded more like a justification for option 1. When starting this CT, I could only think of two options to make the years fit into canon, moving the dates to fit the official BBY/ABY and retitling the years since they were using that calendar system already. Fortunately, no one favored the latter option. I also agree that there should be a clear and concise explanation for the community, since as you said, there were probably a few who didn't quite get what this CT is about. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 03:32, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Keep current system

 * I'm not really seeing an overwhelmingly convincing argument here backed up by indisputable canon evidence. I understand that the BBY/ABY system doesn't exactly match up perfectly with GrS, but this whole proposal sounds like we'd be reorganizing a lot of things based on our own interpretation and what we believe to be right, rather than on the basis of an official source that shows us where something should be. And I don't think we should be making such sweeping executive decisions on our own. As I understand it, LFL plans on clearing up the dating confusion that has arisen as a result of all the Clone Wars stuff at a point in the future once things slow down a little, and I'd be happy to wait until a more definitive organization tool or some kind of "official" statement for this arrives. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:01, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Tope. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Jedi Beacon ) 16:09, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 18:11, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Tope. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 18:25, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Tope, as long as we actually do some sort of overhaul once the LFL position is clarified. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 18:55, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  19:08, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Have we forgotten that BBY/ABY is canon? Sure, some problems are caused from 0 ABY onward. I recognize this. I am troubled by it. I sympathize with it. There is no reason why subheadings cannot have months based upon the BBY/ABY cycle and the GrS date as needed after 0 ABY for where there is confusion. I also agree completely with what Toprawa said above. Once LFL comes up with a licensed source that states the actual dates, we can rearrange whatever is necessary. Until then, we can add redirects for GrS years prior to 36 and for BrS years that are listed in canon as those exact dates if they in fact appear in canon. The current infobox gives us plenty of options as well to make certain that dating is reconciled. There is no reason why 1 ABY cannot be listed as 37.3–38.3 GrS in the infobox. Plus, we have no idea what dating system is being used in the Legacy comics. Converting all our year articles to those based upon the ReSynchronization solely to accommodate an area of canon that chronologically is only about forty years seems quite unencyclopedic considering that the overwhelming majority of year articles are derived either from BBY/ABY dates or the BBY dates that do so far match up with the GrS. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:58, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Fiolli and Tope.  JangFett  (Talk) 01:25, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 *  Grunny  ( Talk ) 01:37, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Fiolli. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:11, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually per Toprawa. But I still cannot get the GrS stuff.  Mauser  Comlink 07:18, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why try to fix what's not really broken?  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:20, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Toprawa. And BBY/ABY is canon. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 02:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Jimmy, Bob, and Larry. Graestan ( Talk ) 14:36, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * While 1 ABY may be canonically 37.3-38.2, I submit that the calendar's months were reorganized. That events occuring in "Month 1, 1 ABY" are identical to "Month 3, 37 GrS", not "Month 1, 37 GrS = still in 0 BBY".  If you were writing a new calendar, would New Year's Day be a third of the way through the months?  No it would not.  So things would only change if the date was explicitly given as being relative to the GrS year (or in # of weeks or months post-BY).  A great reorganization based on supposition is not good. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith  -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 14:55, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I am once again changing my vote based upon the explanations from Mr. Butler, which have indicated two primary concerns: (1) We do not know the true nature of 0 BBY and 0 ABY according to LFL. Mr. Butler has offered his personal interpretation had how he employs it in his timeline, but we are lacking a detailed response from LFL. Mr. Butler's explanation, as detailed in the Discussion section below, contradicts many, many aspects of canon and creates a complete discontinuity by nearly one year between established BBY dates and GrS dates. All major events, from the Battle of Geonosis to the Invasion of Naboo and beyond in both directions are thereby messed up dramatically. This type of a change, based upon the speculation of an individual&mdash;even a respected VIP, such as Mr. Butler&mdash;is not acceptable to me. Should Mr. Chee state that this is the case, then I have no problem trying to make it work. (2) I am concerned that the majority of the users who have voted for this thread are completely unaware of the discussion which has resulted and are misinformed about the concerns. Since the majority of votes were cast, numerous revelations have unfolded themselves in discussion. It is of bad faith and completely disingenuous to take votes from members (one way or the other) without them being aware of the full ramifications of their actions. I am not suggesting there is a conspiracy. I am simply stating that this discussion has come very far and a lot has been learned. I think the users who have already voted need to be made aware to make sure that all is still understood. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Renaming the articles as after/before Ruusan years would be considerably easier than GrS, but I didn't include it as an option because it's used even less frequently than GrS. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 03:45, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * So, in essence, option 1 is for treating BBY/ABY as superior and adjusting GrS, and option 2 is the opposite?  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:33, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if by adjusting GrS you mean adjusting the calendar dates based on the GrS calendar. Option 1 would be to continue to use the names of BBY/ABY but just move events to fit. Unfortunately, this could end up being somewhat confusing, since we'd have to deal more with getting events given in terms of decimals in the right order. Option 2 is, as you noted, the opposite, but the biggest problem there is that it would be confusing, since BBY/ABY was originally meant to make the relations of events easier because it was based on the original movie, so it would seem arbitrary to fans with limited knowledge, not to mention that basically no sources give events in GrS, so it would require speculation on our part to verify that something given in X BBY really happened during X BrS. And of course leaving things the way they are means just using the years in name only. I'm personally leaning a bit more toward leaving things until there's a better answer, since it would probably be easier to fix this and the CW dating at the same time. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 16:47, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify for the benefit of Fiolli's argument: having each year take place from month 3 to month 3 is actually what the first option is supposed to signify. The issue here is that events that took place in month 1 and 2 are being listed as being in the same calendar year as the BBY/ABY dates, which they are, but that's not what BBY/ABY represents. Simply put, the current arrangement is BBY/ABY in name only. Therefore, I strongly encourage anyone who wants to keep things the way they are just to avoid retitling or moving to a different date system to review option 1. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 19:29, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Butler's comments are canon under Canon_policy, since he's a VIP posting Lucasfilm policies. Remember, he did work with Chee on the Atlas. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 19:33, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a discussion with Leland Chee on this specific issue today and have provided the substantive details in the current Wookieepedia thread over on the SW.com forums. Hopefully that clears up the reasons why keeping the current Wookieepedia system (with Months 1 and 2 on the GrS calendar being part of the wrong BBY/ABY year) is factually incorrect and should be fixed if Wookieepedia is going to value accuracy. I hope you find it useful. NathanPButler 01:08, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Link, please? Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:42, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 2 of This Thread

Assuming we go with the first option after all, who of us is knowledgeable enough to actually find and change all those dates? I'm sure isn't the one, as stated in my original vote.  Mauser  Comlink 04:29, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my SWT-G already makes the year delineation at the start of GrS Month 3, so that might make a handy reference to check out. Usually when there's an exact date already given, that date is on there too. The only issue is that I have, for years, tended to convert 12-month dates into 10-month dates, but now we know that the 10-month dates ARE 12-month dates, not 10-month dates, so I'm going to have to do a LOT of tweaking on my end. Still, it might be helpful, if only in a general aid fashion. NathanPButler 16:20, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Butler: I have browsed your creation and must comment that 0 BBY seems completely omitted. Am I in fact reading this correctly? There are numerous events that have been placed in "0 BBY"&mdash;as opposed to some GrS date&mdash;that should be mentioned in your timeline. Also, how then are you treating 0 ABY? Is it, along with 0 BBY, a total of one year or is 0 ABY a twelve month period in itself from 35:3–36:3? &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:35, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me also add this, if I may: What is LFL's take on the 0 BBY/ABY situation? After all, both are canon. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:36, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe events that are, for example, 5 months BBY happen within 0 BBY on the timeline. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 23:11, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * On the SWT-G, I use the "BSW4" and "ASW4" in the same "out of universe" way the GTTSWU2 did under Slavicsek, mostly because it clears up one major issue: that in "BBY/ABY" dating, LFL treats all of ANH as the "Battle of Yavin," but the terms "BBY/ABY" would suggest an exact day of the battle as the zero point. What you'll find on the SWT-G is that while using, say, "25 ASW4" or "26 ASW4" might make sense in years further away from ANH, "0 BSW4" and "0 ASW4" often end up causing confusion (since 0 BBY and 0 ABY, if treated as year names, refer to two different year-long spans). Instead, I treat the dates as LFL does in terms of their use as time markers. So, when you get to the 1 BSW4 notation, it starts with anything that takes place 1 year prior to ANH, and those things directly thereafter. Then the next time there's an exact time marker, 50 days BSW4, it is marked that way, and so on, until the period right up to ANH, which is listed as 18 - 10 Days BSW4 (which might very well be tweaked next time to just be 18 - 0 BSW4." Literally, it's from eighteen days to no time at all before ANH. I use the terms (albeit swapped with SW4 for BY) they way they were designed: duration dating designations. I'll elaborate in the next bullet... NathanPButler 00:00, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, 0 BBY and 0 ABY literally refers to the exact same "0" moment. The year leading up to ANH would be "1 - 0 BBY," while the year after would be "0 - 1 ABY." The next years on either side would be "2 - 1 BBY" and "1 - 2 ABY," but since those are somewhat easier to manage, we often just call them "1 BBY" and "1 ABY," referring to the beginning date of that time stretch in either direction. Thus something "1.5 BBY" or "1.5 ABY" could be said to be in "1 BBY" and "1 ABY," respectively. That sort of sidelong, not quite accurate, usage of the spans as year designations like that, though, leads us to "1 - 0 BBY" being designated "0 BBY," while "0 - 1 ABY" becomes "0 ABY." That's why I don't deal in year names on the SWT-G. Each year is a marker of that amount of time prior to ANH. The further you get under any given marker, the closer you are getting toward ANH from that previous marker. (Interestingly, having to put that into words just might have convinced me to tweak the SWT-G's look next time around, to turn the markers into literal lines across the page in one form or another. Hmmm...) In any event, the materials are on there, but they are labeled more accurately than trying to name the months on either side of ANH with a clunky name that better befits a calendar system than a duration dating system. NathanPButler 00:00, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that ANH takes place over 18 days, or that 18 days is the nearest significant decimal point to just being "0"? — Milo Fett [Comlink] 01:21, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to look, but I think that was the split point only because a particular story reached as far as 10 (not 18) days before ANH as far as its specific, stated time frame. I think it was the Moisture Farmer's Tale. At the time those summaries and such were being added, circa 1999, I made them more specific than just one "span" notation because the story itself was that specific. Were I doing it now, I probably would have just made one big span, but I've never gone back and revised that era as a whole and condensed it. The duration of ANH, though, isn't what that was referring to. Interestingly, I actually wonder if the duration of ANH has been publicly stated. I would put the exact duration on the SWT-G, but I don't know that it has been laid out. (It is in the Holocron, but I don't know if that's public info.) Suffice to say, not 18 (or 10). Heh. NathanPButler 01:34, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Fiolli's Megapost aimed at clarifying some of this&hellip; I know this could spark rampant discussion, but let me phrase this another way. I simply want the facts straight, and I know that 0 BBY either could not be a full 12-month–equivalent span or something is very, very wrong in canon with dates. Let me explain. Based upon the information, provided above by Mr. Butler, 0 BBY would then by from 34:3:3 to 35:3:2. Ok, I have no problem with that, if it is in fact correct. If this be the case&mdash;and I apologize then for drawing this out, but I am concerned about how this is going when we have such broad discrepancies&mdash;then the BBY dates will no longer match up with the GrS dates as we have confirmed in canon.

According to this, then, the sources which place the Battle of Geonosis in 22 BBY would be in conflict with those that place it at 13:5, because 13:5 would take place during the span called 21 BBY. Similarly, the Invasion of Naboo, which began in 3:4 would be in conflict with sources that place it in 32 BBY. Now, if Mr. Chee&mdash;himself&mdash;has said that the 0 BBY span is the equivalent to one year, then while we have a problem, we can work it out because it would be canon. If Mr. Chee has not explicitly stated this, then we are all being misled about what is happening with the GrS-BBY/ABY systems and where they line up. Again, I have not qualms with the BBY/ABY system being a "span" that is offset from having happened at the beginning of the GrS year. That said, there is a gross disconnect between what is being published and what actually is.

Let me also state this: For the BBY years, why is it wrong if the span lines up with the GrS years? Why could not the year 32 BBY go from 3:1:1 to 3:12:33? That has no bearing on the Battle of Yavin or whether or not the movie SW4 starts "on the first of the year." Why? Because, as we have had to interpret it in the past from official sources, 0 BBY and 0 ABY were one year that were subdivided by the Battle of Yavin only. This surmising, which again came from official sources, had 35:1:1 marking the beginning of "Year 0" in the BY system as 0 BBY and the Battle of Yavin splitting the year into BBY and ABY with it happening at 35:3:3. Is that counter-intuitive? Perhaps. I do not disregard that. This system of understanding, however, is what we have had to work with in the past and have had equally extensive discussion on. This, however, would only create the 3:3 offset in the ABY years if 0 ABY is treated as a full year after the Battle of Yavin rather than a part of the broader "Year 0" with 0 BBY&mdash;which, by the way, a Year 0 may have precedent in the SW universe with the GrS having such a date, but I cannot find a source that states it in fact existed.

All I am saying is this: the treatment of 0 BBY and 0 ABY is the linchpin in this. I simply want to make sure we get this right and, as of now, are on the verge of creating nothing short of a speculation-driven catastrophe. If all our dates GrS are moved, many of which will be confirmed for other years in the BBY/ABY system, we will have a problem. That is all. Mr. Butler: If you could, is it possible to have Mr. Chee look at this and see what he thinks? A blog post may not be necessary, but I would like to see something from him that addresses this as it is the most substantial problem we face. Administrators: If he [Mr. Chee] decides to defer, then I move that we defer our vote on this as well until we have something concrete from LFL that does not cause problems for the site. I appreciate the input of Mr. Butler, but I would like to see something from the Holocron itself as it an incredibly delicate situation. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:33, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Was having 2 year 2s intentional? Anyway, could you please specify which official sources put 0 BBY at 2 months and 0 ABY the rest of the year? I prefer it that way myself, but canon and etc.

Also, I think Nathan has been patiently saying this whole time that 0 BBY doesn't work as a year name, but rather a timespan. It's not exactly a year system as we understand it and as we and the GrS calendar use it, but more a way of placing things relative to a specific date. 34:3:3–35:3:2 would be 1 BBY-0 BBY, 35:3:3–36:3:2 would be 0 ABY-1 ABY, and so on and so forth. Thus, 13:5 is in the timeframe of 22 BBY-21 BBY, and it's a given on either dating system that it was less than 22 years prior to ANH, not more. This took me a while to wrap my head around back on the SW.com forums. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 03:47, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Milo, once again, you are misinterpreting me, and I am growing impatient. 1 BBY is still a span that reflects a year-equivalent. This was stated by Mr. Butler above. Now, regarding your remark about 13:5 falling in the 22-21 BBY block. No, this would not happen based upon what Mr. Butler has described. Look at the chart carefully, please. 0 BBY goes until the one year point prior to the Battle of Yavin, then the next span picks up. That is all. Also, I corrected the typo of the two 2s. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the fabric of the timeline itself is inherently broken. On the forum post, he said that 1-0 BBY is "commonly" called 0 BBY, which would cause problems if it were actually meant to be a set-in-stone year rather than a relative measure. The point is that it's an inaccurate phrasing since 1 BBY is no more a year than 0.5 BBY. They refer to dates, not years, so anything referring to an X-Y ABY timeframe as the year X or Y ABY is innately arbitrary. Based on your chart, the best phrasing would be as follows: the year starting with ANH would be 0 ABY (despite really being 0-1 ABY), the next year starting in Space-March would be 1 ABY (despite really being 1-2 ABY), and so on; the year preceding ANH would be 1 BBY (despite being 1-0 BBY) and you get the idea. Defining years after the first date in the span matches up with all such dates thus far, particularly the movie dates. We're probably not going to get a VIP answer confirming 34:3:3–35:3:2 as either 1 BBY or 0 BBY because the phrasing is inherently inaccurate, but any input would of course be welcome. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 04:35, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * You want the brain-bender answer that is 100% due to it being a dating system that's more of a number line than a form of label, which shows just how inappropriate it is to try to use year labels in any meaningful way here? Here's the answer I think you're looking for, though you won't like it: 1 BBY is one year prior to ANH. 2 BBY is two years prior to ANH. 1.5 BBY is 1.5 years prior to ANH. 0.5 years BBY is 0.5 years prior to ANH. The latter two dates there, 1.5 and 0.5 BBY, should be treated as such. That's it. Any story should be treated as taking place the specific duration before or after ANH that it was created for, and that's it. A number line style dating system like BBY/ABY has integers, yes, but those integers are basically markers or roadsigns. They're demarcation points that say "yep, another 12 months has passed in this particular direction." That's all they mean. Period. If you want to start using these markers are year numbers, then you can, but they very quickly break down on you. For example, AOTC is 22 BBY (or, okay, very close to it). It is actually more like 21.85 BBY or so because of the difference in which month ANH and AOTC took place. (rounding here for ease of explanation). Now, we all know and expect that when we refer to AOTC and the events in the months that followed, that we are talking about "22 BBY." That's the common usage. Then again, technically, if you were looking at the year number, that's "21.X" BBY, so one could make the argument that it should be in very late "21 BBY." Of course, we know that's very odd phrasing, given that we use approximate durations as our way of keeping time, not year labels, but one could be drawn toward either one if one weren't careful about how one perceives these numbers. So, we look back at our 1.5 BBY and 0.5 BBY dates. Technically, 1.5 BBY could be labeled as being in "1 BBY" because of its integer, or "2 BBY" because it's in between the "1 BBY" and "2 BBY" markers on our number line. The common usage on this one, luckily, in my experience, tends to be that people think of it as either its own number "1.5 BBY" or as part of "2 BBY" because it is further away from ANH than 1 BBY. That starts to feel a bit wonky, though, as one moves into the 0.5 BBY scenario, because we are used to thinking in whole integers for these dates. 0.5 BBY is within the first year on the number line as you move backward from ANH. However, because it's not a fully integer away, we think of it as "0 BBY" because it's less than a year. But, just a moment ago, when we looked at 1.5 BBY, we found the integers on either side (2 BBY and 1 BBY) and said it is most commonly referred to by fans as being in 2 BBY, not 1 BBY. We have gone from the label referring to the point farthest away from ANH to the one closest to ANH out of naming conventions that fans often use to refer to these eras, which do not make logical sense when set beside each other. It starts to appear as though 1 BBY has disappeared. But wait! If an event is right at 1 BBY or just a few weeks after it, perhaps, how do fans usually refer to it? 1 BBY! However, didn't we just have an event in that same one year time span get labeled as being "0 BBY?" Yep, we did. Welcome to how fandom naming conventions in trying to put a name to a year on a number line, duration style dating system breaks down when used in a way it was not intended. You end up with, quite literally, a contradiction in terms, but not in how you line up stories. Again, you just can't treat the BBY/ABY dating system like you would a calendar like the GrS. The way most fans minds perceive the information when they see it doesn't fit that style of date keeping. Our minds basically play flip flop on us. It would be best to simply label a given story as "X BBY" and be accurate with the X in terms of how far before ANH it is set, not try to treat BBY/ABY dating as "years," so much as "years that have passed." NathanPButler 05:35, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, that's more or less what I was trying to get at. If we're still going to use BBY/ABY as article names for years (and I don't see any reason not to for encyclopedic purposes) I still think we should use this system rather than this one. (Sorry about the crappy drawing, all I have is MS Paint atm.) Because Episode II is in 22 BBY according to every official source thus far, and TPM in 32 and ROTS in 19 and so forth, that would indicate that the licensed sources favor the method of naming the "year"/timespan by the earlier BBY year, as is done with ABY years, and we should do the same. This system is also easier for non-timeline nuts because it shows more clearly in the example that there are eight years involved from -4 to +4. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 14:24, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

From Fiolli:

Mr. Butler: I fully understand what you are saying about it being an integer system and more relative. If my niece is asked how old she is, she holds up three little fingers and replies as such and will until her next birthday. Of course, she's three and seven months, but it is relatively three to her. The integer is such and it is merely a milestone. I totally comprehend that and its relationship to the BBY/ABY system. What I am saying, however, is that we have canon sources which place events in these years based upon BBY or ABY. We have sources that place the beginning of the Clone Wars in 22 BBY. That is an official LFL source and not some "fandom naming convention" as you suggest. If it was posted as 21.85 BBY only and fans called it 22 BBY, then we would still stick with 21.85 BBY regardless of what fans said. That is the point of what I list. Mr. Butler, you stated above that, "The next years on either side would be "2 - 1 BBY" and "1 - 2 ABY," but since those are somewhat easier to manage, we often just call them "1 BBY" and "1 ABY," referring to the beginning date of that time stretch in either direction." I understood that, and Milo kindly illustrated this with this drawing. Yet, you had other comments which further clarified this issue for me:


 * With regard to 0 BBY/ABY, though, bear in mind that 0 BBY and 0 ABY are two different time spans if you're trying to use them as year names. 1 BBY and 1 ABY don't start until a year in either direction from ANH, so the first year before or after ANH would be 0 BBY or 0 ABY, respectively (though better referred to in decimals, months, weeks, or days, rather than in just trying to name a year).

I took that and assumed: okay, so the relative span starts like the aforementioned birthday. No problem. I get that. So, I drafted the chart above to plot it out and ask if you had any objections. Then I realized that there was a disconnect with canonically established BBY dates and canonically established GrS dates. So, I reread your comments to try and better understand it again. In response to the chart you suggest that fans comprehend things by rounding the numbers one way or the other. That is all well and good, but I do not care what the fans do&mdash;as far as how we present things on Wookieepedia&mdash;I care about canonical accuracy. What does LFL do? You answered this question above, as well, saying, "Heck, even the Holocron uses BBY/ABY dates generally (in decimals that denote tenths of a year, generally, as necessary), rather than the GrS dating system (though it does include those dates if they happen to exist)."

Now, everything you have suggested thus far, to me, appears to go slightly askew to what LFL has done because of the mathematical disconnect. This is why the issues are not worked out in my mind. I apologize if this is becoming too protracted but I hope that this post clears up, for you, why I am confused and concerned. If LFL uses the BBY/ABY system in its Holocron, the overwhelming majority of major sources use the BBY/ABY dating scheme&mdash;including the employment of this system with decimals, such as in the guides&mdash;and we have canon sources which line up things in both schemes, then why does the math not line up? Again, as you have stated, 0 BBY began at the Battle of Yavin and extended until 1 BBY as a relative span based upon that "integer." Therefore, 0 BBY covers everything from 35:3:3 backward to 34:3:4 until the 1 BBY point, which was one year prior to the battle&mdash;again, as you stated in the first and second quotes I cited in this post&mdash;and then proceeds backwards to 33:3:4 where 2 BBY then beings. This in-and-of-itself does not confuse me, but it causes a disconnect with dates. If LFL is "rounding" the BBY/ABY numbers, I would like to see something that shows that. Maybe there is&hellip; I am not suggesting that there isn't. I simply want to see it to ensure accuracy, because as it stands now, these relative spans of time will never line up with anything near what we have as established canon and we have more of a mess on our hands than anything else. If LFL is taking everything from 0.5 BBY to 1.5 BBY, for example, and rounding it to 1 BBY for the sake of ease, then that totally changes the line up on the dates and resolves most of this for me; although, I concede, not all would be resolved. The issue is simply the math and it does not work at the moment. Plus, I am trying hard not to take your comments above about fan perception as meaning we should go with what the fans think, but it strongly comes across that way. Again, if LFL is rounding dates, please show me. If canon sources or official (and completely attributable sources rather than hearsay) state this as well, then I will gladly jump on board. I simply want to do this right.

Milo: In honesty, you have solidified my argument against why we should make any changes so blindly without fully understanding what we are doing by drafting those timeline-based images. Deciding to completely ignore 0 BBY as the preferred alternative is utterly unacceptable because it exists in canon. Sorry, but we have to deal with the fact the year exists even if poses potential problems. Plus, the second drawing indicates exactly what Mr. Butler appears to have been explaining, as cited in the quotes above. If that is the case, then we have a chronological problem on our hands. That is what I am trying to figure out. LFL has this worked out in their minds, and I just want to have that same measure of accuracy. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:37, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * But both exist in canon. Since we can't have 0 BBY mean two things at once, and since it seems to be a matter of nomenclature where there are multiple accepted norms, the question is which works better for an encyclopedia. You might as well say that not using ATC years is utterly unacceptable because they exist in canon, yet those obviously wouldn't work out very well. And besides, it's not like anyone's suggesting ignoring the year itself and removing it from canon. Events which happen in, say, 0.5 BBY would go to the year article named 1 BBY, because 1 BBY encompasses 1-0 BBY for our purposes. Remember, the math for just about every date doesn't work out without the first drawing method, and I think Nathan's comments about "0 BBY" were intended to show how complicated things get when you use such a system. Also, in regard to rounding, the New Essential Chronology puts the Battle of Geonosis at 22 BBY--and then puts a date after it at 21.95 BBY. Surely Episode II isn't precisely 22 years earlier. — Milo Fett [Comlink] 22:32, October 8, 2009 (UTC)