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! 168.8.212.117 16:16, 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)

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)


 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)

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)