Forum:TC:Timeline of the Clone Wars

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Timeline of the Clone Wars

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Graestan(Talk) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Clone Wars (talk - history - links - logs)

Unfortunately, since the start of the new The Clone Wars project the very phrase "Timeline of the Clone Wars" equals to a "continuty mess-up" for any educated SW fan. Seriously, whe whole article is one big joke now: we have no official timeline whatsoever, yet someone continues to insert events from the new series into there, dating them by months, which is pure conjecture (or must I say fanon?). The article became self-contradictory: battles in which Anakin fought as Padawan are set after the ones in which he fought as a Knight, Aurra is part of Bane's team while she was supposed to be on Oovo IV etc. And do I need to remind you about the new issues presented in Wild Space? Now, for the regular IU articles we have Template:TCWRetcon and Template:Twoconflicting which serve quite nice, but what use is the timeline article if "the exact chronology of the events described in this article is currently unknown"?

So, two options here: either we delete the whole article, which usefullness is highly questionable, or we revert it back to pre-TCW state for the purpose of keeping the original, non-screwed Clone Wars timeline to the history (with a related note on the top of course). In that case all new events can be stored in the existing "Unknows dates" section until the new official timeline is released (which could be years from now). "Leave as it is" option is also present. So, please, take a thought before voting on this one, because the subject ir really tricky. Mauser 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete the article

  1. I would grudgingly concede that this article has limited usefulness, but I also point out that this thing is one giant clusterf*ck of fanon and unsourced speculation. Delete "List of Clone Wars battles." Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. IFYLOFD (Come with me if you want to live.) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. I think that the best thing would be to simply delete this article, and start from scratch once a new timeline has been officially established. As it is right now, this article will be difficult to upkeep, and will be prone to fanon. Cylka-talk- 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per Tope and Cylka. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 02:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. I'm just straight opposed to any kind of abstract baloney like this. Let it die now, and later be resurrected as LFL comes through with retcons. Assuming Mr. Chee isn't sleeping on a park bench by now. Graestan(Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. Anon in comments proves the point that pretty much 90% of this article is conjecture and fanon. -- I need a name (Complain here) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Ineed. jSarek 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per Mauser. Also, I don't think that moving the battles of the new project will be useful in any way. Why do we need a timeline that lists half of the battles at the unknown time period? I say delete for now and write a new article when Chee releases the official timeline. QuiGonJinnThere's always a bigger fish. 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  10. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per Tranner below; didn't realize that it also applied to this article. CC7567 20px-Rex.png (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep, but move the events from the new TCW project to the "Unknows dates" section

  1. Mauser 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. —Lucius malfoy7 Nute777 (Give it up for Lil' 'Soka Tano, ladies and gents!) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Even if maintenance does become more and more difficult as more "new timeline" sources are added, that's no reason just to up and delete the whole thing. I say just keep it and add new events to unknown until we have a new timeline because 1. there won't be any new events on the old timeline to make continuity confusing, and 2. we really don't have a lot to go on in terms of the new timeline and the best option seems to me to be to just present the available data in a way that's both internally consistent and consistent with at least some published works. Milo Fett[Comlink] 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. I hate to say this, but I like this option for one reason. We do not know the exact order and exact date of every battle. While unlikely, individuals could have been shuffled through different theatres of battle and there could be more or less time between events than either text or the show illustrate due to constraints of novels or a 22-minute timeslot. Until we have exact dates and times for each, I say this article could be preserved and salvaged. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    CC7567 20px-Rex.png (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. If there are no official dates, then "Unknown" is where they belong. TheAinMAP 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Wookieepedia's Manual of Style: "...do not include phrases like "his ultimate fate is unknown" or "what happened to the ship after that is a mystery." As a rule, we avoid the "unknown"-type wording/information presentation. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with site policy before voting on matters of site policy. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Isn't that a separate issue? There's a difference between saying "we don't know what happened next" and "this happened at some point." Milo Fett[Comlink] 03:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave as it is

Comments

Deleting the article would be just stupid, especially when you can easily just sort it out, for a start events from the new tv series on cartoon network all happend in the third year of the clone wars, evidently sometime after the battle prestylian. You can tell this because Anikan is referd to as a genral, which means he must therefore be a jedi knight, also you can tell the tv series is set later in the war because Anikan's and Obi Wan's hairstyles match the ones they have in episode 3. —Unsigned comment by 84.93.65.126 (talk • contribs)

  • If only that were true. Unfortunately, the new show "officially" takes place in the first year of the war. -Milo Fett[Comlink] 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. As the Databank now states, "Impressed by Anakin's skill with the Force, the Jedi Council quickly conferred upon him the status of General and Jedi Knight at the war's outset." The timeline is no longer anything like what we thought it was. jSarek 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I really hope they don't change what happens to Ventress in Obsession. It's not in the Databank, but I'm not sure it ever was. -Milo Fett[Comlink] 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, perhaps the article could be given some form of protection to lessen the flow of fanon. TheAinMAP 23:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)