Talk:Timeline of galactic history/Legends

Timeline
Timeline section would probably be better represented using the vertical EasyTimeline. I haven't done a timeline like this before, but I'm willing to check it out when I get a chance. WhiteBoy 04:09, 20 Mar 2005 (EST)

Helpful Links
I'm going to post links that might be helpful for integration into this article: --SparqMan 06:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Future of this article
What's going to happen to this article now that we're making individual articles for each year? – Aidje talk 20:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This will remain, but it will be less cluttered if we move alot from it to those individual pages. Then we can link to those years from the main timeline, and the timeline will serve to hold everything together. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But listing years on a timeline and linking to them isn't a very helpful timeline. A timeline needs to have the content that is on those pages to be useful. --SparqMan 14:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This timeline can be the basic timeline covering the most important parts of the movies and the EU that is too distant to link together (i.e. 3,000,000 BBY). Then each year can cover Events, Battles, Births, and Deaths in greater detail. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang time
If the Big Bang is 13.7 Billion years ago from modern Earth time; and Star Wars takes place a long time ago, wouldn't it be less than 13.7 billion years before the Battle of Yavin? 162.84.120.221 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

0 BBY or 0 ABY?
The official Galaxy Map has the following comment near Alderaan: "Planet destroyed in 0 ABY". This site, however, uses 0 BBY everywhere... - Sikon
 * Well, it was destroyed before the Battle of Yavin, so 0 BBY it is. --Imp 11:03, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That is strange indeed. Obviously an error on the map. --SparqMan 12:00, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So if we refer to this year, we use either BBY or ABY depending on whether the event occured before or after the battle itself? - Sikon 12:16, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a weird situation. But you can assume that 1 ABY is exactly 1 year after the battle and the same for before it. But I wouldn't be changing anything. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:14, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That brings up another interesting issue. By using BBY/ABY rather than an IU time unit, like the Great Resynchronization, we cause some trouble with dates as it is unlikely that the 10-month standard year matches closely to when the Battle of Yavin took place. --SparqMan 15:04, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, such system would eliminate a Year 0, because in Riffsyphon1024's scheme 1 ABY would immediately follow 1 BBY. (Or there would be two Years 0, with 0 BBY immediately preceding 0 ABY.) Currently, there seems to be only one Year 0 - 0 ABY redirects to 0 BBY. And if the standard year lasts 10 Earth months, it brings even more questions... questions asking what years a particular dating system refers to. For example, can we assume that a certain person was born in X+Y BBY if the person was Y years old in X BBY? - Sikon 15:29, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I only created that redirect because 0 BBY and 0 ABY seemed to be being used interchangeably (at least on this wiki). I agree that it seems this system should not have any year 0 (or it should have two of them). By the way, Sparq: BBY/ABY is an IU time scale; it was set in 25 ABY, no? – Aidje talk 04:30, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea, we OOU people didn't "create" it. The New Republic did. -- Riffsyphon1024 14:41, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * @Aidje: I was unaware of that. Was it mentioned in one of the early NJO books? If so, is it safe to assume they merely changed the years so that months in the BGR/AGR correspond directly to the BBY/ABY system? --SparqMan 21:07, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually seen any of this information first hand; all I know on this subject is what I've seen here. I would assume that the months were not changed, but that is just an assumption. I think it's a safe assumption, but I'm not really sure. – Aidje talk 16:28, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well if someone could check that and post it, I would be much obliged. If it isn't IU, it seems awful silly for us to do everything else in IU with an OOU time unit. --SparqMan 16:37, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's from The Essential Chronology, which even discusses it's use as an IU unit on pg. xiii: "We have chosen to mark the years in this document with the emerging standard, one that establishes the true significance of the Empire's decline and the Rebellion's unstoppable triumph. We have taken as our calendar 'zero point' the date of the Battle of Yavin, the destruction of the first Death Star, and the first overwhelming victory of the Rebel Alliance.  We see this as the primary beginning of our time and way of life.  Thus, events that precede the historic Battle of Yavin are indicated B.B.Y., while those occurring after are A.B.Y.  Future generations will recognize these years as the genesis of a golden age for the galaxy."  jSarek 03:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * In an ideal setting, it would be nice if the GR-based system eventually fell into common usage, some lofty day in the future. The fact that the BBY/ABY system was retconned into being used in the fictional world is just positively disgusting to me, and just strikes me as hideously lazy...  Why can't we have nice things?--Spanky The Dolphin 03:10, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a bit lazy, but significantly easier to understand for the majority of fans. Although if you think about it, the use of AD/BC in our own dating system is equally ridiculous. --SparqMan 03:32, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't see how our BC/AD (or BCE/CE) dating system is "equally ridiculous," or frankly even comparible to this lazy retroactively internal BBY/ABY concept. Anyway, that came from The Essential Chronology, right?  If so, then all I can say is that thank God that capital moron KJA isn't on Lucasfilm's payroll anymore.  I wish I could say that I'm curious to see what will be done with the new EC coming out this year, but frankly I'm not, since Del Rey doesn't seem to be anywhere near the standard that DK is with their SW reference literature.  Bet it's just another ugly unrevised subpar rehash like all the others have been.--Spanky The Dolphin 03:44, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not lazy, it's marketing. For the rather fannish Adventure Journals and HNN, the Great ReSynch dates were fine, but for a big work aimed at getting new readers caught up in the EU, that system is worthless.  I frankly hope to see the BBY/ABY system see a lot more usage, as it's just as sensible IU as the arbitrary date used for the ReSynch, and more comprehensible OOU for fans, new and old alike.  jSarek 03:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It's equally ridiculous because it is also a retroactively instituted concept. No one was walking around in 1 AD saying, "Man, I'm glad it's one year after Christ's birth. Woowee!" What I wonder is why they would choose the Battle of Yavin over the Battle of Endor. I imagine those who suffered under Empire were most excited about the death of the Emperor and Vader than the destruction of the first Death Star. Either way, it likely that there are a good number of commonly used calendars in the GFFA, which must make chaos for a datebook. =)--SparqMan 04:22, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't that the idea behind the Great ReSynch ;) But anyways, I imagine that the Rebels probably started colliqually using the terms ABY & BBY some time before Endor, and it just stuck and became officially recognised. --beeurd 14:16, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

New Calander
Better we move the information on Calander in this page to a new page Galactic Standard Calander User:Srini

Suggestions for Clarification
There are a few points on here that I think could be worded better. This feels like an OOU point of view to me. Is one of the KOTOR outcomes the officially accepted view, or do the both have equal validity? If it's the latter, perhaps we could tweak this slightly to make in an IU perspective? Something like "The Jedi Civil War concludes, though the exact events surrounding this period remained cloudy. Some say that Malak was killed by a force of Jedi, while others claim he was destroyed by his former mentor Revan. Many claim that Revan was slain, though some believe he was redeemed and turned back to the light side of the Force, and still others believe he left to the far reaches of space to conquer (or destroy) the remnants of the old Sith Empire. The Star Forge is also destroyed.
 * "3,956 BBY: The Jedi Civil War concludes with the redemption of Revan, the death of Malak, and the destruction of the Star Forge. (Alternativly, it ends with Revan destroying Malak and reclaiming the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith. The Star Forge is later destroyed by the Jedi when Revan sets out to conquer the remnants of the old Sith Empire.)"
 * The whole "alternatively" bit should be removed since LFL has confirmed that the lightside ending is the canonical one.QuentinGeorge 06:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This is not to be confused with the New Jedi Order? Is there a better way to distinguish the order established in 3,951 BBY and the one established in 25-30 ABY? Perhaps in 3,951 we could say "a new Jedi order lead by X"? --Culix 02:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * "3,951 BBY: .. a new Jedi Order is built."
 * Unfortunately, we don't know this "X". From what we know, it may be Atris, Bastila Shan or any of the Jedi Exile's followers. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:11, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * There'd I'd instead say that "The Jedi Order is rebuilt by the Lost Jedi. QuentinGeorge 06:18, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Big Bang date?!
If the Big Bang indeed occurred only 7,5 billion years BBY, then the SW events took place billions of years before now. For some reason, I presumed they occurred at the most thousands of years ago. What's the source for the Big Bang date? - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."Xilentshadow900 10:30, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I'd still like to have a reference to the source. - Sikon [ Talk ] 13:10, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * "NOTE: Various sources, including the Essential Guide to Alien Species tell us that this event takes place at 5,000,000,000 BSW4, but since the formation of the Yavin system is listed in the Star Wars Encyclopedia an entire 2.5 billion years before that date, I am forced to simply use the Yavin date with a “+” for the creation moment, seeing as how it isn’t logical for the Yavin system to form and then have the Big Bang take place, as LFL would seem to be suggesting in their editorial slip-up." - That's from Star Wars Timeline Gold, talking about the date of the big bang. However, looking at The Essential Guide to Alien Species, it only says that the 5 billion BBY date is the date of the formation of the Galaxy, not the actual universe. I don't know what other sources cite a big bang date. -LtNOWIS 22:12, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well assuming the Big Bang from us took place 13.7 billion years ago, and the galaxy states theirs as 7.5 billion, then you could extrapolate a difference of 6.2 billion years. Interesting. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:07, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Present Day
I added the following: -	*c. ~6,900,000,000 ABY - Present Day -	**Based on current estimates for the age of the universe, and the date stated for the Big Bang. -	**Assumes that the star wars galaxy is in the same universe as our own.

to the end of the timeline, and it was removed. I would appreciate an explanation of why this is a bad addition?
 * I don't know, but I think this is because of the OOU information. It would be better without the "assumes" clause, since Earth is located in the same universe, only in a different galaxy. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:27, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed. The source isn't exactly accurate, nor very clear. --Master Starkeiller 13:00, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Dark Nest
Isn't it in the Legacy era? (I think the current era division is lame and marketing-driven, but still.) - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in the NJO era, apparently. --Imp 16:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mandalorian Wars
According to Master Dorak the Mandalorian Wars started seven years before the events of Knights of the Old Republic (3956 BBY) which would make the date 3963 NOT 3965 BBY. In fact, the timeline is doubly wrong because Dorak said that the Mandalorians started invading worlds outside the Republic 20 years before (ie. 20 years before 3956) which means the true date for that event would be 3976 NOT 3983 BBY. I thought I better get some feedback before I change anything... Thoughts?--Sentry 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

References:

"I will begin 40 years ago with the war of Exar Kun."

- Dorak

"Twenty years ago the Mandalorians, awar the Republic was in a weakened state, began conquering small worlds on the Outer Rim. They were careful to choose only planets outside the Republic's jurisdiction."

- Dorak

"The Mandalorians stockpiled resources from their conquered worlds, preparing for a massive assault. Seven years ago they launched a simultaneous attack in three seperate sectors of Republic space"

- Dorak

Exile disappears
o The Jedi Exile, along with T3-M4, disappears into the Unknown Regions to find Revan.
 * 3,950 BBY

Unless it's in the NEC, it should be speedily deleted as obvious fanon in the generally-obscure-and-nobody-knows-what-the-heck-happened-right-after-K2 KOTOR era. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Celestials
Do we have any info on the dates of the Fizz, Celestials, Starfish people or the Gree?


 * Check out Gree (planet), Vuffi Raa and Woteba Jaywin 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If this article get's voted in for the improvement drive...

 * Just in case this article gets voted in for the improvement drive, I would like to make a suggestion, if I may. My suggestion is to focus on one era at a time, for the sake of efficiency. Perhaps we could start with the Pre-Republic Era. When it's generally agreed that this section is sufficient, we could then move on to the Old Republic Era, and so forth. Comments? Jaywin 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Format
I would recommend that we devise a proper format for this timeline. I would suggest that we remove all excess verbage and simply stick to dating major events rather than trying to explain them... Comments?--Sentry 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions! I agree that devising a proper format is important. I also agree that we should keep the verbage to a minimum. But personally I like the idea of including minor events as well. First, I think it's pretty interesting to see "the big picture" of the Star Wars universe on one page. Also, having a relatively exhautive timeline on one page can give editors the opportunity to use this page as a starting point to efficiently fact check a vast amount of info on Wookiepedia. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several layout issues that should be resolved at some point:

Should any events with conjectural dates be allowed? If so, how should they be presented?
Personally, I think that only confirmed events with concrete, confirmed dates should be included on the timeline.--Sentry 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that we can break down dates in 3 ways. (1)You can have precise dates that are established. Obviously, we can all agree on those dates. (2) There are what I would call "circa" dates...that is, dates that have been established around a general time, (e.g., the founding of the Republic was c. 25,000 BBY). I suspect there wouldn't be much, if any, disagreement about those kinds of dates, either. (3) Then there are what you labelled as "conjectural" dates. I suspect what you mean by this are dates that are approximated, for example through inference. Now this last kind of dating would most certainly be the most debatable. Personally, I don't neccessarily have a problem with the idea in principle. However, if we do use thse kinds of dates, they should be debated and clearly labelled with something like "approximate dates" or "conjecture based on [fill in the blank]," or something to that effect. To elaborate on a point I made in the previous section, carefully conjectured dates that are clearly labelled as such can add to the "big picture" of Star Wars. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What entries should be bolded?
I think only major wars should be bold. Those would be the events in the 'Major Galactic Conflicts' sucession.--Sentry 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I agree that we should make major wars bold. Perhaps major events in general, (e.g., The Founding of the Republic). Of course, I think we can agree that we should create clear criteria for what "major" means. Perhaps we can make established periods bold, as well. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to list battles? If so, which ones?
Personally, I don't see the point in adding battles. They are listed in the war articles already, so they just take up space here. The only exception would be battles that did not take place within the time scheme of a major conflict.--Sentry 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, another good point. I agree with labelling battles that did not take place within the time scheme of a major conflict. Perhaps with other battles, we can list them in a more concise way than the way that they are presently listed. For example:
 * Let's say there's a 3 year conflict with 9 battles, with 3 conflicts per year. We could label the period of the war, (beginning and end), and then say [blank year] battle such and such through battle such and such for each year, or something to that effect. Jaywin 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing we could do when it comes to battles is we could just make links to other lists of battles, like relevant sections at List of battles, Timeline of the Clone Wars, and Timeline of the Galactic Civil War. Jaywin 03:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are some battles worth posting due to their in-universe signifigance. The beginning and end battles of major wars, for example, as well as such shattering battles as Mizra, Coruscant, Endor, etc. Kuralyov 03:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Especially since such events can easily be placed into a short sentence such as: "The Mandalorian Wars come to an end following the Battle of Malachor V."--Sentry 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong or Questionable Dates

 * I've been spending a lot of time pulling together a lot of these dates from articles all over Wookiepedia. A lot of these dates were contradictory. A good example was the crash of the Chu'unthor on Dathomir...it had three different dates in three different articles! When I noticed this, I posted the contradiction, and User:Kwenn looked it up, found the correct date, (340 BBY), and corrected the two subject articles that were wrong. I went in to the two "year" articles, (292 BBY and 400 BBY), and corrected those, and corrected the date on the timeline.
 * My suggestion is that if we run into dates that are incorrect, not only should we fix the timeline, but we should also fix the date in the relevant articles, as well, both subject articles and year articles. Jaywin 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)