Talk:Timeline:Pre-eclipse

Not that it really matters too much right now, but most of those events are sentences and should have periods: (Zahava fights in the IDF., Mr. Bennet is born., Hana vows to avenge her progenitors' deaths, and honor their legacy., etc.) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I know that a lot of them are, but just to make it consistent, I removed the trailing periods. Otherwise, we'd have to make all of the parts complete sentences, and I don't really feel like doing that for that many parts.--Bob 18:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Reference template?

One thing I think might look nice would be a template to format timeline references (quotes, dates on receipts, that sort of thing.) I'm thinking of something like this:

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

That would make them stand out a bit from the rest of the page and make it clearer what they are.--Hardvice (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I'm liking that with the quotes. With pictures, there's only really two pictures that refer to a time table - the receipt and Zane's obituary. I think it'd look cool, but I just don't really know how it could be flexible to handle a thumbnail. Maybe one of y'all know.--Bob 20:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • We could just do a text link to the image, like this:

Nathan's hotel bill is dated October 6th.(Hiros)

but then I guess we'd be missing the pictures (unless we put the image in a gallery, too.)--Hardvice (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I tried toying around with different things, I think it looks better the way it is now IMHO. But the quotes definately look a lot better.--Bob 21:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I like the idea of distinguishing the quotational references from the bulleted events, but I'm just not digging the way it looks. I don't have a better suggestion, and I'm not hating the blurby quotes, it's just not my favorite. I wonder if there are any other possibilities. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I suppose we could modify the quote template for use on the timeline. Heroe!(talk) 10:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• It should probably be its own template. The quote template lets us use a quote like an image. These are closer to citations and thus need to be better integrated into the accompanying text. We could make the new template look more like the quote template, however:

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

My only concern is that it looks a bit too much like the surrounding text.--Hardvice (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• Personally, I think the example above is the best way to go. It looks just enough like the surrounding text to not be distracting, yet the box makes it stand out enough. If you want, we could make the font different, and even make the box rounded. I think it's the blue background that I find a bit ... objectionable.

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

Hmm? Hmm? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• To be honest, I could go either way with the larger rounded boxes. But that shape/size is good.--Bob 15:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
• How about just enough color to set it apart from the page background?

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

I just think the white background on a white background looks awful. It makes it look like Jumble puzzle with one answer circled.--Hardvice (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• That's cool, too. I also wouldn't mind it with a darker outline, if one felt so inclined. I just didn't like the blurb look.

  — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• How's this:

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

--Bob 16:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

How about something like this?

Heroe!(talk) 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• That still has a white background. How is it different?--Hardvice (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• I like Bob's the best, but maybe with a border that's not so blue

"He says six months. Seems we're made of time."--Jessica (Stolen Time)

...but really, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

• I like the color (I was just adjusting the hex code til it was dark, didn't bother looking at actual color values). And you forgot three pairs.--Bob 21:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Season 2

I know I'm jumping the gun on this, but if the reports are true (I think Kring mentioned it in an interview) that season 2 will cover a lot of history on the characters we've encountered, then this article is going to get messy. Maybe during the break between seasons we can re-structure it by decade or something.--Bob 13:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

• That's the kind of bridge we need to cross when we get there. Season 2 could jump around a lot in the pre-eclipse history, or it could have six episodes set in October 1964, for example. Which way it goes would determine the changes we'd need to make to this article.--Hardvice (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Definitely. The only reason we made the break at the eclipse is because that's when the main body of events begin occurring. If Season Two jumps around a bunch, we might decide to find a natural breaking point. Or perhaps we lift a certain bloated section that S2 will focus on, and make that its own article. Lord only knows where S2 will take us. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Yeah, looks as if the 17th century might need it's own section> We'll have to see!--Bob 17:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
• Compared to the other Timeline articles, this one does seem a slight bit long and cumbersome. I think a good split for this article might be made by dividing it thusly: one page beginning at 1584 or earlier and stopping at 1990, the other beginning at 1991 and stopping at September 2006. Does anyone agree? User:SacValleyDweller 14:54, 28 July, 2007 (PDT)
  • I wouldn't mind a split around that time period, but I'd rather wait to see how Season Two progresses, since I believe we're going to find out a lot more about the past. If the storylines focus around one time period in particular, it might make for a more natural break somewhere else. Sure, this article, is long, but it's not as cumbersome as others. I'd just wait to see, personally. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
    • Meh, I can roll with that. My split does seem kinda unnatural when I think about it. SacValleyDweller 19:24, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Sylar's birth

Is there any evidence for Gabriel Gray being born in 1979? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

• Weren't the Paul E. Sylar scenes cut? I think we should remove the info about Paul E. Sylar's birth as well.--MiamiVolts (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Actually, that's a good point. If this is based on the trivia item on the page for One Giant Leap, then it's important to clarify that that image isn't actually from One Giant Leap--it's an unaired scene from Genesis. It just appears on the page for One Giant Leap because of the room Mohinder and Eden find with the "Forgive Me Father" scribblings.--Hardvice (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Unaired pilot

Since the information from the unaired pilot never aired, it is not part of the Heroes continuity, not part of the timeline, and never actually happened. I want to be very careful about mingling unaired information with aired information. If a date needs to be noted or mentioned, it should be noted on the page set aside for the unaired character, not on a page like the main timeline which lists canon dates from aired episodes and GNs. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Inconsistency?

Thompson hires Noah in 1991... but Ivan trains him in 1989?--Riddler 18:27, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

• I thought about it too. More than likely, the GN writer messed up, but one can argue that Thompson "welcomed" Bennet to the company in 91, so he may have been training for two years. Plus, Ivan said that he trained both Noah and Claude, but those two were not partners yet. Maybe he's a trainer for the company, idk.--Bob (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

new title

the pre-eclipse title seems a bit outdated--SacValleyDweller 01:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

splits

this was touched on in an above section, but I think we might have to seriously consider some artificial splits in this thing for manageability of the subject mater and overall utility/readability. Proposed pieces derived from the whole:

• Through 1899
• 1900-1969
• 1970-1989
• 1990-1999
• 2000-September, 2006

thoughts?--SacValleyDweller 01:39, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

• I have a feeling that we're going to find out when that photo was taken, more on the group of twelve and such. So, I think that maybe pre-Vietnam (when Linderman and Petrelli met) might be a good break. I'm not for splitting into that many breaks, but splitting the page in half should suffice.--Bob (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Splits made, but need doors in the portal

I made some splits in this page by copy-pasting bits to some subpages, they just need doors in the portal and navbar. here are the splits: User:SacValleyDweller/Timeline:Through 1967
User:SacValleyDweller/Timeline:1968-1989
User:SacValleyDweller/Timeline:1990-September 2006 Do they look OK to be promoted to the big time?--SacValleyDweller (talk to me!) 22:34, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

• I like the splits you made. They're all even. Rayhond 16:56, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
  • They look fine, but the splits seem a bit arbitrary. Why 1967? Wouldn't 1977 be better? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2007 (EDT)
    • Wanted to keep them kinda short. Bob suggested separating pre and post Vietnam, probably due to the start of Linderman and Mr. Petrelli's friendship/start of Group of Twelve. That split yielded a long post-Vietnam, so I thought a split at about 1990 would keep things short, neat, and clean.--SacValleyDweller (talk to me!) 01:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)
      • But the Company was founded in 77. It's also when Linderman obtained the Kensei sword. 67 was just the year that Dallas and Austin met, not when the group of twelve banded together. Heck, I wouldn't even say that's when Petrelli's and Linderman's friendship began. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)
        • good argument for company era/pre-company era split. That could work too, but those are on the long-ish side. Feel free to make those and implement them, I can roll with them. Just name the two pieces by dates and I'll like them.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)
          • Well, personally, I don't really think there needs to be a split right now. I'm not opposed to one, I just don't think it's necessary. I'm glad you made some subpages, but I really wish you hadn't moved them into the namespace without adequate feedback first. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2007 (EST)
            • I'll remove them then, and wait till about 11:00 PST on 11/10/07 to put them back or no depending on feedback. BTW, what would be the threshold for the split anyway?--SacValleyDweller (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2007 (EST)
              • I'm not opposed to a split, I just don't see a need for it. There's no rule for how many people have to agree, but so far, I've seen more opposition or confusion ([1], [2], [3], [4]) than agreement ([5]). Not everyone has to agree, but there should be a little more support than I'm seeing thus far. And please don't weigh an admin's opinion heavier than a non-admin's (in this capacity, I am a contributor, and stand on the same level as everyone else). I hope I'm not sounding like a bully, that's not my intention. I just want to make sure that more people either agree or don't care. I want to make sure we are working as a community as best we can. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Proper Discussion and vote on a split of this artcle

Vote: Place your sig on your position.

Split
--SacValleyDweller (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Dont Split

The Question: Should his long timeline artcle be split, and if so, how much and where? mu aruments are i the above sections. Restated, they are that 1) this is geting too long and unwieldy and 2) the eclipse of October is having waining significance on things.--SacValleyDweller (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (EST)