Forum:CT:BBY/ABY vs. GrS

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:BBY/ABY vs. GrS

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was: No consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:25, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

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)


Voting

Move the dates

  1. Most readers (myself included) still cannot get the whole GrS stuff. MauserComlink 04:17, September 26, 2009 (UTC) (Vote unstroken)
  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)
    It's not often that I'm swayed to change my vote, but Nathan Butler's reasoning makes perfect sense—despite my personal preference for the BBY/ABY system. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
    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)
    • (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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
    Changing vote per evidence provided by Mr. Butler. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:04, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
  5. 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)
    Per Mr. Butler. Grunny (Talk) 07:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
  6. 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)
  7. 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. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
  8. 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)
  9. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:17, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
    Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 17:28, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
  10. 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)
  11. JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:33, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
  12. It'll be a pain, but hey, canon is canon. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 22:05, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
  13. 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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. --Eyrezer 04:05, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
            • 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)
              • 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)
              • 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)
                • That's why I voted for the option you outlined, as inelegant as it may be. ~ SavageBob 15:39, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
    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. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:53, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
      • 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…). 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—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. —Unsigned comment by Jedimasterfiolli (talk • contribs) 19:31, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
            • 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)

Retitle the years

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 (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. — 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. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:11, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
    Actually per Toprawa. But I still cannot get the GrS stuff. MauserComlink 07:18, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Why try to fix what's not really broken? Trak Nar Ramble on 08:20, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Toprawa. And BBY/ABY is canon. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:33, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
  4. 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)
  5. 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—even a respected VIP, such as Mr. Butler—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. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
  6. I've been watching this discussion, and the longer it has been going, the more doubts I've had. With all due respect to Mr. Butler, I'd rather hear something concrete from LFL. Grunny (Talk) 00:26, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Fiolli and Grunny. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:46, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Grunny. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 00:47, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per Grunny. Despite the "verification" Butler has provided and linked to here, Fiolli makes several excellent points and reveals a number of loopholes in this proposal and the overall canon relationship between BBY/ABY and GrS that can't just be cleared up by saying something as general as "I've talked to Leland Chee about it." The ongoing discussion of this forum proves how genuinely convoluted this all is, how (no offense to the creator) poorly this proposal was presented, and it has reinforced the initial hesitations I had that made me oppose this proposal in the first place. I'm now convinced that it's imperative that we wait for an official clarification on this entire issue directly from a real LFL VIP and/or a real source. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:22, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:33, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
  11. Completely per Tope. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:08, October 13, 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 Wookieepedia: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)

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. MauserComlink 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"—as opposed to some GrS date—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? — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:35, 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… 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—and I apologize then for drawing this out, but I am concerned about how this is going when we have such broad discrepancies—then the BBY dates will no longer match up with the GrS dates as we have confirmed in canon.

BBY Date GrS Date,
per Mr. Butler.*		 GrS Date,
per our current understanding
0 BBY 34:3:3–35:3:2 35:1:1–35:3:2 (35 continues into 0 ABY)
1 BBY 33:3:3–34:3:2 34
2 BBY 32:3:3–33:3:2 33
3 BBY 31:3:3–32:3:2 32
4 BBY 30:3:3–31:3:2 31
5 BBY 29:3:3–30:3:2 30
6 BBY 28:3:3–29:3:2 29
7 BBY 27:3:3–28:3:2 28
8 BBY 26:3:3–27:3:2 27
9 BBY 25:3:3–26:3:2 26
10 BBY 24:3:3–25:3:2 25
11 BBY 23:3:3–24:3:2 24
12 BBY 22:3:3–23:3:2 23
13 BBY 21:3:3–22:3:2 22
14 BBY 20:3:3–21:3:2 21
15 BBY 19:3:3–20:3:2 20
16 BBY 18:3:3–19:3:2 19
17 BBY 17:3:3–18:3:2 18
18 BBY 16:3:3–17:3:2 17
19 BBY 15:3:3–16:3:2 16
20 BBY 14:3:3–15:3:2 15
21 BBY 13:3:3–14:3:2 14
22 BBY 12:3:3–13:3:2 13
23 BBY 11:3:3–12:3:2 12
24 BBY 10:3:3–11:3:2 11
25 BBY 9:3:3–10:3:2 10
26 BBY 8:3:3–9:3:2 9
27 BBY 7:3:3–8:3:2 8
28 BBY 6:3:3–7:3:2 7
29 BBY 5:3:3–6:3:2 6
30 BBY 4:3:3–5:3:2 5
31 BBY 3:3:3–4:3:2 4
32 BBY 2:3:3–3:3:2 3
33 BBY 1:3:3–2:3:2 2
34 BBY 0:3:3–1:3:2 1
35 BBY –1:3:3–0:3:2 0
36 BBY –2:3:3– –1:3:2 –1
37 BBY –3:3:3– –2:3:2 –2

(*Note: This is NOT what I have explained, hence the "Per Mr. Butler" column is incorrect. See discussion below for clarification.) NathanPButler 14:20, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

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—himself—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—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. — 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. — 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). (Emphasis added)

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—as far as how we present things on Wookieepedia—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)." (emphasis added)

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—including the employment of this system with decimals, such as in the guides—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—again, as you stated in the first and second quotes I cited in this post—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… 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. — 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)
    • Again, if I may try to clarify without losing my mind: When you see 0 BBY and 1 BBY referenced by fans and elsewhere, you are seeing references that are often being made to the same year-long span, as I mentioned above. It all comes down to how one interprets what it means. If you are referring to time spans, then 1 - 0 BBY is basically "0 BBY" because all integers in that zone begin with zero. That's why you see things set just before ANH as "0 BBY," rather than "1 BBY." If you are looking at things closer to a full year (but not quite that long) before ANH, you'll often see it listed as "1 BBY" instead of "0 BBY" (rounded to that nearest integer but ignoring the integer on the number itself. This is ONLY an issue for this first year prior to ANH, though. If you look back at the dates of, for example, TPM, AOTC, or ROTS, you see them listed as 32 BBY, 22 BBY, and 19 BBY, even though they are more like 31.9 BBY, 21.85 BBY, and 18.85 BBY or so (given that they are in GrS months 4, 5, and 5, respectively). In those cases, it is obvious that they are in spans of "32 - 31 BBY," "22 - 21 BBY," and "19 - 18 BBY," and we commonly refer to them by the earlier of the two numbers. The only place when that doesn't always hold true is the events right before ANH within that span of 1 - 0 BBY. As such, if you are looking at things as time spans, you would not refer to a "Year 1 BBY" or a "Year 0 BBY," because just the very term "Year" in there is in direct opposition to what the notations are meant to state. While it is incorrect to say "Year 1 BBY," it is correct to say "1 Year BBY." The latter is a duration, as the dates were meant to be used, while the former is trying to turn that duration into a label. However, if Wookieepedia insists on a need to put a year label on events, rather than an exact time span, then the more accurate way to do it in relation to all other dates beyond a year prior to ANH would be to label "1 - 0 BBY" as "1 BBY" and to not have any dates listed as "0 BBY" whatsoever. When people, both inside and outside of LFL, it seems, have interpreted "1 - 0 BBY" and tried to give it a year number, it has been twisted out of wack due to proximity to ANH and how people don't seem to be able to easily interpret the zero integer and its decimals. In all other instances, though, if we look at events on a number line, it is the integer to the left that takes precedence in naming the year. (For example, even though a story set a few months after TPM is 31.X prior to ANH, it is still usually said to be, breaking with how the dating system is to be used, a few months into "the year," 32 BBY.) The left number gives the year its "common usage" number, and is only left up for being discussed by its right-hand number when right next to ANH. Why? Probably people's inability to handle the idea of a number line. In any event, given the extent to which common usage is often used in lieu of proper usage, I would argue that one should look at the context of a particular story to determine its placement. If something more specific than a "year number" is available, that should be used (i.e. 6.5 BBY rather than 7 BBY), but in lieu of such a date, the only way to use colloquial usage in a way that is at least consistent with that common usage is to use the number on the LEFT and forgo "0 BBY" entirely in favor of "1 BBY." Otherwise, you end up with dates in "1 BBY" and "0 BBY" (a direct consequence of LFL rounding in source material) that would only be able to be sorted by context . . . Remember that the original issue here, however, was whether dates in Month 1 and Month 2 on the GrS calendar should be considered part of the end of one BBY/ABY year, while Months 3 - 12 are in the next. That issue remains unchanged, as the current setup that leaves Months 1 and 2 as the beginning of a new BBY/ABY year is outright incorrect. NathanPButler 13:29, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. So this means that this system would work best if we simply must use the years as names rather than spans, correct? —Milo Fett[Comlink] 13:44, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
        • That is correct. Technically, they should not be names, but the way they're used colloquially would make that correct. It's a number line like that. The trick is that if you use it that way, you need to be very careful with any events in the year prior to ANH (especially close to it), as their sources will often note them as "0 BBY" and you'll need to make sure to list them instead as "1 BBY" or with some kind of decimal (or just "1 - 0 BBY") to make sure the numbers are clear to visitors. NathanPButler 14:23, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
          • Ok. Apparently the official policy is to close the discussion after it's been 2 weeks (Sunday) and there are no edits for five days, since there's a 5-2 majority of votes in favor of one option. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 16:10, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
            • Milo: First of all, hold off on gerrymandering the closure of this forum until this discussion is done, because frankly the edit scenario has not happened and snowball does not quite kick in yet. I have one final question for Mr. Butler, and I would rather him answer it than you—if I could be so blunt.
            • Mr. Butler: I appreciate you taking the time to explain this, and I am sorry that you feel this has been a burden. I simply want this right, and I hope you can at least respect that regardless of what you may think of me. Let me once again say that you have brought up fan sources again: "When you see 0 BBY and 1 BBY referenced by fans and elsewhere…" It is the LFL procedure I care about rather than Joe-fan's, my, or yourpersonal opinion about what it should be. I am trusting that you are trying to portray what LFL does internally. That said, are you suggesting, therefore, that we completely ignore "0 BBY" in every source—whether it be the Essential Chronology, the New Essential Chronology, Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force, Lords of the Expanse and every other official source that lists 0 BBY just to put whatever event in 1 BBY because 'it does not quite work with our preferred system?' That is all I am asking. In other words: Are you suggesting we completely ignore and subvert this accurate portrayal of canon for something that may look clean on our wiki regardless of what the sources say? — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:38, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
              • I am basically saying that the way all years are treated except "1 - 0 BBY" has been to use the initial number (on the left on a number line). For that oddball "1 - 0 BBY" year, though, we're in that unusual spot where items are extremely rounded. You'll see some official sources refer to things in this year as 1 BBY if they are rather close to that marker (even though within the 1 - 0 BBY span instead of right at 1 BBY), and you'll also see other sources put stories in that span at 0 BBY because of how close they are to ANH. The problem is that both designations are used in official sources, thanks to that rounding. If you want to be accurate with those designations, yet still utilize a year naming system that adheres to how the rest of officialdom uses the dates, then what I'd suggest is this: For dates within the 1 - 0 BBY stretch, use decimals or approximations, and utilize the "circa" nomenclature. For example, if something is about 11 months or 10 months prior to ANH, but we're not 100% certain exactly when it takes place on the GrS calendar, then round it up to 1 BBY like most official sources would, but use "circa 1 BBY" or even "1 - 0.5 BBY" to pin it down. Then it something is very close to the beginning of ANH, but you can't pin down a number of days, weeks, or months immediately before ANH to give it a proper decimal, round it to "0 BBY" as many official sources do, but use "circa" to be sure it's understood that you're approximating, or use a range like "0.5 - 0 BBY." Or, just don't use "1 BBY" or "0 BBY" at all, but instead use a span notation of "1 - 0 BBY" for that particular era. Perhaps even with a footnote that explains that the source is often listed as 1 BBY or 0 BBY, but it is actually within that year-long stretch. 1 and 0 BBY seem to be used too interchangeably in official sources to easily choose one over the other and not end up with some sources being ignored and others being accepted. NathanPButler 22:54, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
                • Ok. I understand. That said, if there are sources which explicitly state one or the other, should we not just go with the source for the sake of accuracy? In other words, if Event X is in 1 BBY, place it in the 1 BBY article, regardless of the GrS date because the BBY/ABY articles are simply approximations that are only created because of their listing in official sources? Basically, as I would personally prefer for accuracy, we stick to only what is published in official sources—which I know no one has a qualm with, but let me explain—meaning that if the New Essential Chronology places it in 1 BBY, we leave it in the 1 BBY article with any GrS dating in parenthesis. Then, if another event is listed as simply being the same day, using the GrS date, why could we not simply have an article for that GrS year? That would keep factual consistency without guessing or speculating whether or not an event is closer to some date or not. I would rather have that with a "see also" tag at the top of the page. We could put that tag at the top of 1 BBY and say to see also 0 BBY and related years such as Year 34 (although that article would need to be created). I think this would preserve the most accurate information of canon without guessing which BBY year or GrS things fall in. Removing the BrS/GrS year from the infoboxes is incredibly easy, as well. I write all this to say that if this is what this proposal is offering, then I am all for it. I am not a fan of randomly placing dates because, well, it feels right. If it is canon, we should go only off of that. Am I correct? — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:22, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
                  • Not entirely. Since there are inconsistent representations in canon, we would define each year as 3:3-3:2, including 1 BBY (0 BBY would redirect), for the sake of consistency, and because that's the best way to do it in general, as explained by Nathan. This would not require any speculation or fanon. If all we know is that an event takes place roughly 1 year BBY or if the source just says "1 BBY", we would put it in the 1 BBY article. If we knew that it took place on 34:2:3, we would put it in the 2 BBY article, even if an official source rounded. The only difference between this and the current system is the cutoff date for the year under which specifically dated events fall. If you mean that there should be two articles for each year, that seems unnecessary, but if you feel strongly about it, feel free to add it as another option. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 23:44, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
                    • Milo: That's just it! We cannot ignore 0 BBY because it is in canon. And, we cannot just place 0 BBY events in 1 BBY because it doesn't fit into our box. Canon is canon. Simple as that. If it says an event happens in 0 BBY and that is the only source, it is an inaccurate and fanonical placement to say that it is 1 BBY just because we think the GrS system is such when there are no GrS dates for that event! Canon is canon and you have perpetually sealed my argument. Mr. Butler: I do not see a problem with what you describe above in many ways. About the rounding of numbers, however, let me explain what I am seeing. You have said that the Battle of Geonosis (13:5) is about 21.85 BBY. Ok—if there is a source that gives 21.85 BBY—so how is that different from what I charted out above? Based upon the number timeline and how you described it, 13:5 should fall in 21 BBY with this case being 21.85 BBY. Plus, you said immediately above that "if we look at events on a number line, it is the integer to the left that takes precedence in naming the year." Therefore, 21 BBY is the span (beginning at 14:3 and going backward to 13:3. If rounded, we get 22 BBY; if we simply look at the span, we get 21 BBY. If this is in fact correct, and I believe it is based off of everything you have said, then 0 BBY does in fact exist and the chart I created above is in fact correct based off of your explanations. The only difference is that some sources round numbers to 22 BBY when they are that close. I could live with that, in fact. I cannot accept, however, that we take an entire span and rotate it the other way. An event that takes place in 21.3 BBY under the proposed system that Milo lays out would be lumped into 22 BBY. How is that logical or canon based? It makes no sense to me. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:15, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some clarification is in order. I believe the confusion comes from the lack of clarity between a relative system and a calendar system.
    • Officially and most precisely, BBY/ABY is a relative measurement, not a calendar. Something that happened two months before Episode IV would be marked 2 months BBY, or 0.16 BBY, or rounded to 0 BBY. This is the system employed in sources such as The New Essential Chronology, albeit with some erroneous dates, and I suggest referring to it as "timespan notation" for clarity.
    • Less precisely, some sources use it as a calendar. The same event that was two months before Episode IV would be marked 1 BBY, as with anything in the year leading up to the Battle of Yavin. This is the system used in sources that say things like "The Battle of Naboo happened in 32 BBY" and I will refer to it as "year notation" for clarity.

Now, although the first of these is the preferred and more precise system, the second works better for a page-based encyclopedia, since otherwise we'd have to make an article for individual months or even days. Choosing one of these sub-systems doesn't mean that any canon has to be ignored or any speculation utilized. If we find a source that says an event happened 0 BBY, we know that the sources uses timespan notation, rather than year notation, and it's a simple matter of conversion. It's roughly analogous to merging Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader--some sources list them as different people, but our version is still supported by other sources, and it's not really speculation to list appearances as Darth Vader in the Anakin Skywalker article. Also, I feel compelled to note that you seem to have taken the opposite of Nathan's meaning. He means that the Battle of Geonosis would take place in 22 BBY (year notation) because it's in 22-21 BBY (timespan notation) and 22 is "the integer on the left." Likewise, the Battle of Hoth takes place in 3-4 ABY (timespan notation) and 3 is on the left, so it would be 3 ABY (year notation). An event that happened 21.3 BBY (note that, since 21.3 BBY is a timespan measure, saying it happens "in" 21.3 BBY is inaccurate) would be 21 years and 4 months before Episode IV. As you said, it would fall into 22 BBY (year notation) because 22 BBY (year notation) represents the period of time from 22 BBY (timespan notation) to 21 BBY (timespan notation). This only doesn't work out if you assume 0 BBY is the name of the year before Episode IV, as in your chart above, because 0 BBY is from the timespan notation, not the year notation. This should address the points in vote summaries and the rest of the discussion. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 01:44, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • Milo, you are missing the point. I asked Mr. Butler to confirm or deny because I wanted to make certain. If I am incorrect, it does not change my point. To say that the NEC has "erroneous" dates is outrageous unless it has been retconned—and no, I do not consider this discussion a retcon. Converting something based upon this system is speculation as nothing has been confirmed by LFL. Should it be converted to 1 BBY is ignoring that canon sources place it in 0 BBY. It is as simple as that. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:03, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • Nathan has been refuting your point all along, though. He said that 1 BBY in year notation is the same as 0-1 BBY and includes events placed at "0 BBY" in timespan notation a number of times: "You'll see some official sources refer to things in this year as 1 BBY if they are rather close to that marker...and you'll also see other sources put stories in that span at 0 BBY because of how close they are to ANH." "...as their sources will often note them as "0 BBY" and you'll need to make sure to list them instead as "1 BBY" or with some kind of decimal (or just "1 - 0 BBY")..." . He has also addressed your point about what events fall into what year ("I am basically saying that the way all years are treated except "1 - 0 BBY" has been to use the initial number (on the left on a number line)") and denied that your chart was correct ("This is NOT what I have explained, hence the "Per Mr. Butler" column is incorrect.") I can see how having an article for both 1 BBY and 0 BBY would seem to be the most inclusive option, but really it draws a distinction where none was intended. As for the NEC, I just meant that some of the dates are incorrect, such as placing Episode II at exactly 22 BBY--we know it's not rounding because it puts something else at 21.95 BBY after it--not that the timespan notation in general is erroneous. Really, what more do you need? —Milo Fett[Comlink] 02:25, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's basically been watching this the entire time without actually stepping in, I think the main point here is that there is no official LFL verification of what is right, what is wrong, what is canon, and what is not canon in regards to this subject, regardless of Mr. Butler's statements. Considering the sheer confusion that this is creating, it really would be better to wait for some sort of official LFL statement on the matter. You could end up changing so much now only to have LFL agree with Fiolli, or present something completely different from Fiolli and Mr. Butler's arguments. You could very well be shooting yourself in the foot if you proceed like this. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 02:29, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • True, although Leland Chee's quotes in the forum did seem to support Nathan Butler's assertions (and once again, Nathan Butler's statements are canon under WP:CANON), not to mention the sources that use BBY/ABY as a calendar in this manner. Would an official statement saying that this interpretation of year notation and timeline notation are correct suffice? —Milo Fett[Comlink] 02:37, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

An official statement, to me, and I'm just an observer, would be the best way to go. IMO, in order to make changes of this magnitude, it needs to be a current statement posted in an official source or on Leland Chee's blog in order to specifically clarify this. I mean, I know Mr. Butler worked with Mr. Chee with The Essential Atlas and I know he e-mailed Mr. Chee about this. I'm not questioning his credibility by any means. The thing is, though, that when the statement goes through a middle man, that middle man being Mr. Butler, it's going to be debated, picked apart, etc. If Mr. Chee would either come here or post in his blog to say what is right and what is wrong, that would pretty much put an end to the debate because that would be the absolute 100% official canon explanation. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 02:43, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll try to get a forum post on the subject, since I don't know his email, it's unlikely he'll make a blog post just about this, it would be more convenient than waiting for a published source that may or may not include the information, and the question is longer than 140 characters. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 02:46, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 02:48, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • Done. It would of course be welcome if Nathan emailed Leland with the same or a similar question. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 03:16, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • I already emailed Leland about this whole thing in the first place, hence the quotes noted in the forum. I asked specifically for info that I could then quote to help clarify the situaion and remove as much confusion as possible. Given the context of the situation and other non-quoted asides on the subject, I do not believe it likely (though I could be mistaken) that Leland will choose to official weigh in on the subject again, as it seems a bit of a sticky issue. The entire idea of trying to put GrS and BBY/ABY dates into some form of easy comparison is something he is/was entirely relucant to do, given that one is meant to be a calendar and the other is meant to be a relative dating system. And, no, I will also not take the issue to Leland again. At this point, I think he's said all he intends on the subject, and I certainly am not going to strain that avenue of communication that I have surpisingly found so available in recent months. Honestly, this entire issue should not even remotely be this difficult to deal with, especially since it is not new information by any means. NathanPButler 04:07, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought not. But are the two methods in the forum post a correct interpretation? —Milo Fett[Comlink] 04:13, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

If Mr. Chee is reluctant to weigh in on something like this and have some sort of easy guide to figuring it out, I don’t see how Wookieepedia is really supposed to come to some sort of real consensus and figure it out without messing it up, or potentially doing something that will be rendered wrong by LFL once Mr. Chee or someone else decides to officially weigh in on it. This just makes me think it’s all the better to not do anything about this now and wait until there’s some sort of official verification or statement or whatever. Until someone officially puts the issue to rest in an official statement, I’m not sure an e-mail from Mr. Chee is really a wise source for what is and is not canon because even his own e-mail could be contradicted later if he or someone else decides to put something like this together. An official statement is really needed here to put the issue to bed once and for all. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 04:16, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe we need to specify what exactly the issues that need official statements here is, because to be honest, the only thing that seems to be a source of confusion is 1/0 BBY, and even that just seems to be a matter of convention rather than canon. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 04:20, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • Now, to clarify for Milo and Fiolli: When referring to the date of AOTC, we would say that AOTC takes place in the middle of 13:5 on the Great Resynchronization calendar. Given that ANH is in Month 3 of its year, that means that AOTC is two months further into its GrS year than ANH is. If we then utilize the BBY/ABY dating system as it was intended, as a relative dating system, we could round the date of AOTC to say that it is "22 BBY," literally meaning "twenty-to years before the events of ANH." If we were to be more specific (and we figure that AOTC is about 2.5 months later in its year than ANH, just for rounding's sake) we would say that it is approximately "21.8 BBY," literally meaning "twenty-one years and about 9.5 months before the events of ANH." That "22 BBY" rounded notation or "21.8" relative notation would be using the BBY/ABY relative dating system. Using that dating system, we should not necessarily refer to the year integer, because, if we did, then we'd be saying that AOTC was in "21 BBY," not "22 BBY," which would clash with the colloquial use of the terminology and likely confuse people. It would be much more accurate to say, under that system, that AOTC is in the "year-long time span of 22 - 21 BBY." However, if we were to use the BBY/ABY relative dating system in the way that many sources do, which is to draw a line in the sand named "22 BBY" and then include anything happening after that point up to "21 BBY" as being in "22 BBY," and thereby somewhat reluctantly use "22 BBY' as a year name instead of a relative date, then we would only be correct, in relation to official canonical sources, to refer to that year-long time span as "22 BBY," acknowledging that it does not mean all of the dates with 22 as its integer (i.e. dates like 22.1 BBY, 22.5 BBY, 22.9 BBY, and so on), but that it actually means all of the dates in the year-long time span that follows the "22 BBY" mark on the timeline (i.e. dates like 21.9 BBY, 21.5 BBY, 21.1 BBY, and so on). That utilizes the BBY/ABY relative dating system to label year-long time spans the way official sources tend to in current canonical parlance. NathanPButler 04:29, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • The only place where this becomes an issue is when referring to events in the year prior to ANH because official sources, recognizing BBY/ABY as a relative dating system, have used both "1 BBY" and "0 BBY" to refer to events in the year preceding ANH, simply because they often rounded to the nearest integer. Therefore, many dates within 6 months or less of ANH have often been labeled as "0 BBY," while events 6 - 12 months before ANH (approximating, of course) have been rounded to "1 BBY." It creates a contradiction in terms, literally, but only because it's a relative dating system. If one were to try to label these years in the traditional, canonical format, and if one did not want to keep in mind the rounding of "1 BBY" and "0 BBY" for events "1 - 0 BBY," for the sake of just having one year notation, then one would be forced, by simple consistency, to refer to those events as being in "1 BBY" and possibly note that "0 BBY" is just a rounding way of saying "riiiiiiiight before ANH" in rounding terms. NathanPButler 04:29, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
      • So, "22 - 21 BBY" on a relative dating BBY/ABY system, could be referred to, correctly, as "22 BBY" in common, canonical shorthand, while it would be referred to as "13:3 through 14:2" on the Great Resynchronization calendar. It's three different ways of referring to the exact same time frame, just as if we started to play with the BTC/ATC or BBG/ABG relative dating systems. NathanPButler 04:29, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
        • In other words, if you want to be accurate, any events listed in "0 BBY" should likely become "1 BBY" or be listed as "1 - 0 BBY" or have their date noted in decimal terms. Meanwhile, all dates on the GrS calendar that come in Month 1 or Month 2 should be considered to be at the end of a BBY/ABY year span, which would all accurately begin with Month 3, as they are relative to the ANH film, not GrS "January." NathanPButler 04:34, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
  • That should clear up any confusion and disavow the notion of any "loopholes," but you can see why a second opinion (not that it is a matter of opinion, but you know what I mean) would be helpful for such a change. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 15:30, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • Now, perhaps someone could clear up my confusion. I understand that the "Month 1 and Month 2 aren't in the same BBY/ABY year span as Months 3 - 12 of the same GrS-numbered year" is something that (somehow) surprised some people. I understand that there have been incorrect assertions of "loopholes" above, based on perhaps lack of clarity, which may be partly due to my convoluted, meandering explanations. However, if the concept noted in my most immediately above post is understood, then I am not seeing why this is a huge cause for concern to some. Surely, Wookieepedia would much rather be accurate than inaccurate (and there is only one way to actually be accurate here, let there be no doubt of that). So, what's the concern? Is it the workload involved in tweaking dates on individual story pages? Does it have to do with how Wookieepedia has pages for individual years sometimes? I don't see why there's outright resistance to accuracy here. I would think choosing accuracy over inaccuracy would have been a given, not a point of contention. NathanPButler 18:32, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really has anything to do with a resistance to accuracy. It's more of a resistance to making a change of this magnitude without some sort of official statement of accuracy, from what I've gathered. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 18:34, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

  • The work involved wouldn't really be that extensive, just the few specifically dated events that happen to be in the wrong year and 0 BBY and 1 BBY being merged would do it, so that's not it. I think the issue is both the lack of further verification (despite the fact that your explanation accounts for all methods used in official sources) and some confusion caused by the relative vs. shorthand measurements. If there really is no more official input, I personally think we have all we need right here, but some people are justifiably hesitant, because it is a rather confusing issue if you're used to the current WP system. But again, if anyone has other concerns, please don't hesitate to voice them. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 19:51, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
    • So, there's evidence of "what is" staring us in the face. There's specific quotes from Leland (when specifically inquired about this subject) staring us in the face. Buuuuut, unless one is given yet another way of indicating the exact same thing (which, again, isn't even remotely new), some folks basically would rather be inaccurate than accurate for the sake of not wanting to take the existing information and evidence at face value? Remind me again how that's at all logical . . . NathanPButler 20:07, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess the hangup is over what I earlier referred to as "timespan notation" vs. "year notation" for BBY/ABY. Leland didn't happen to mention those, did he? Not that it hasn't, as you said, been apparent in plenty of sources already. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 20:20, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
        • If you look back at that thread where I quoted from Leland after that email, he flat-out said that the BBY/ABY system is a dating system that uses time relative to ANH, not a way of naming years. How is that still in question? NathanPButler 20:40, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, but some sources use it as years ("x event happened in x BBY") as a "canonical shorthand," as you put it. Actually, I don't really see what the problem is either, never mind. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 20:44, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
            • Think of it this way: If an event is listed as "22 BBY" in canonical shorthand, so as to denote that it's in the span of "22 - 21 BBY," then we can think of it as being "in the twenty-second year prior to ANH." (The first year prior being called "1 BBY" in shorthand, the second being "2 BBY" in shorthand, and so forth.) That's basically what that canonical shorthand is doing, which is why "21.5" is in "22 BBY" (the twenty-second year prior to ANH), rather than "21 BBY" (the twenty-first year prior to ANH). NathanPButler 21:36, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
              • Right. If anyone is still reading this and is still undecided, please voice your objections. —Milo Fett[Comlink] 21:42, October 11, 2009 (UTC)