This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.

Talk:Timeline:October 2006/Archive 1

From Heroes Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive.jpg WARNING: Talk:Timeline:October 2006/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Timeline:October 2006. Archive.jpg

Few things

So the first thing is the template. That won't be too hard to make, just didn't feel like shelling out code that isn't necessary until something's decided upon.
Next thing is span id's. I didn't include them just because they need to be cleaned up anyway. Personally, I don't see the need for them since you can refer to the section of the article. We know Homecoming is Oct. 11, so when pointing to it on the timeline, why point to Timeline#Homecoming when you can easily do Timeline#October 11, 2006. It's only a few more characters on one page instead of having to do code on two pages.
Last thing is commenting. When I was copying, I noticed someone commented on something that was a justification for a specific date for an event. I like that, and I think it should be standard for things that are unspecified.
Anyway, any feedback, and I'll start to build the other pages once I get input.--Bob 14:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Ahhh, this is much better! Heroe!(talk) 14:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • The span IDs only become important if we activate the Wikipedia date reflexes, which would allow user's preferences to format dates (things like the date episodes first aired, characters' death dates, and the like. I've talked to Admin about it briefly. If we had the reflexes in place, we wouldn't need sixteen different span ids (or any, really -- we could just redirect the date to the proper section) because [[October 11, 2006]] and [[11 October 2006]] would be the same article. That way, we could standardize the date format across the site (it's really messed up right now) and get nice, clean links to the timeline articles at the same time.--Hardvice (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Ah gotcha. Well in that case, I'll go ahead and add them if it's decided upon that my suggested articles be used. I'll go ahead and make the template, the pre-eclipse and after I eat, I'll go through and add tags. My question though is what should the tags be for? Just a date? If so, which format should I use?--Bob 14:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I think it looks much cleaner, much more organized. The navbar template: Good call, we can wait a bit. The span ids: Hardvice is right, we don't need them for Timeline#Homecoming, we need them for all the variations of dates that are out there: Timeline#October 11, 2006, Timeline#October 11, Timeline#October 11th, Timeline#11 October 2006 etc. Comments: they're a good thing. You can't get all the math for dates etc. with just a citation; notes help a lot. I'm liking what you've done, Bob--nice job. Let's let it sit and stew for a bit to see what feedback people have. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
        • Actually, if we turn on the date reflexes, we don't need them for variations of the date at all. We can have one article for [[October 2006]] and another for [[October 11, 2006]], point them to the proper sections (with or without span id's), and links to [[October 11, 2006]] and [[11 October 2006]] and whatever other date formats Special:Preferences support would all go to the right place.--Hardvice (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
        • Wait, so elaborate on what tags should be put in. Should there be tags for each section/date?--Bob 17:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
          • I think what Hardvice is saying is that we should probably hold off on tags for just a bit until we find out if we can turn on the date reflexes. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Also, I agree with Ryan and Heroe: one million percent better. Great job.--Hardvice (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)


I looked at the template and can't really figure out how to add a clean link that works on a template.--Bob 18:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

  • "A clean link" to what? To the timeline? I'm not sure I understand exactly what it is you're trying to do. Do you want to change the template so it points somewhere else? I guess we'd have to add a "month" variable so it points to the right timeline article. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Well what I meant is that the template points to one article. If we use this format, the timeline is split into 4+ articles. So there would have to be some way for the template to either know which article to point to, or what have you. On a side note, once Nov. 8th does occur on the season finale, we'll have two Nov. 8ths that took place: the future possibility and the real one (unless the time travel concept of the show doesn't allow for change, which I doubt). Once that happens, which article would the template redirect to?--Bob 18:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
      • The template: a simple page=October (or whatever) would work. However, I think the whole thing should be incorporated into template:infobox event--that way it can jump right to the date that's entered. November 8th: Let's have it direct to the November 8th article for now, and then see what happens. I have a feeling it's going to be something like the Homecoming Series (painting): what we saw earlier will transpire, but in a way we're not expecting. Let's wait until after the finale in May to make a more informed decision. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
        • Didn't think about the infobox event. Good idea.--Bob 18:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
          • The only problem with adding template:timelinearticle to template:infobox event is that I don't think you can force the timeline link to go to the bottom of the page, and I don't really like it at the top of the page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
            • Well all events are part of the timeline, correct? For the infobox on the date, could it have a link to the timeline? There wouldn't be a need for the template:timelinearticle if we did that. So in other words, at the top for date, it displays the date and it links to the appropriate portion of the timeline. --Bob 20:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
              • Not all events are part of the timeline--some are kind of thrown in there because they don't really fit anywhere else (Linderman's prosecution, Message, Visions) and some are really more than one-day events (Ted's escapes, Campaign). The infobox already links to the timeline with a jump to the date. You're right, maybe timelinearticle isn't needed. I guess we'll just leave it as is, or maybe we could just tweak it a little if people feel it should stay. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Trial By Fire

In this graphic novel, one night Nathan is walking in NYC and ends up rescuing a girl from a burning building. Where to place this in the timeline?

Well, in this issue, a chat Nathan had with Peter that went (paraphrasing) P: We flew. Aren't you curious how this happened? / N: I've got an election to win. is on his mind. This dialog is from the TV episode One Giant Leap, the morning of the fundraiser, which is almost certainly October 4. So Trial By Fire must have happened at the earliest on the night of October 4.

But the night of October 4 (the fundraiser) it was raining in NYC. Also, we see Nathan go to a parking structure with his men. So October 4 doesn't work for Trial By Fire.

The following night, October 5, doesn't work either because Nathan is in Las Vegas with Niki.

The night of the 6th also seems to be a rainy night in NYC (seen when Peter is at Isaac's loft in Hiros)...

The night of the 7th (which would correspond to Better Halves) is the earliest night which would work (no bars that I saw) and also happens to be an episode where Nathan doesn't appear. So I'm thinking that's the best approximate fit. --Mercury McKinnon 16:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

  • I would definitely say that it was October 4th, and the rain either stopped, or it was overlooked by the GN writer/artist. I can't think of an instance where any GN has jumped 4 or 5 days into the future. They often go into the past, or they will tell the "next event", but not days ahead of what was seen onscreen. Since Trial By Fire was User:Ryangibsonstewart#Order of Release#released immediately following One Giant Leap, it's pretty safe to assume that the events of both occurred on the same date: October 4th. The rain was probably an oversight. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Hi. You might be right, but it's very much arguable whether there really is a pattern/rule to how a GN relates in terms of timing to that week's TV episode (and in particular that GNs would definitely not show a scene meant to take place around 3 days later). How Do You Stop an Exploding Man? came out right after Godsend, but the GN seems to take place at the very earliest 3 days after the episode.
    • What it looks like to me is that GNs were commissioned more to explore and spotlight each lead character, rather than to necessarily continue the action of the recent episode. Between 2 ways to approach how to determine timing, I prefer to give weight to in-story/canon elements rather than to off-story assumptions, as with your take.
    • Next, in addition to rain and fire not mixing well physically -- storytelling-wise the rain and fire seem significant, deliberate elements in their respective stories (in One Giant Leap the rain accompanies the dark, gloomy scenes of the NY-based characters and allows for the red umbrella) rather than casual details of the type that could be overlooked. The GNs go through an editor, right?
    • And then the rain isn't the only thing I thought worked against October 4. In the fundraiser, Nathan and his entourage are in an area that (to me) seemed to be an area where they were waiting for Nathan's vehicle. So the idea was that he was about to take a ride, probably home (since the fundraiser was already at his campaign HQ). And why would Nathan be walking about NY either before or after the fundraiser that night?
    • To play devil's advocate to myself, are there in-story clues from Trial By Fire to suggest October 4? Well, on the first page Nathan seems to be wiping his face with a handkerchief, so maybe he was bleeding from Peter's punches. But countering that counter, we also see Nathan wiping his face (if I recall right it was on the rooftop when Peter levitates before Nathan, in Don't Look Back) even when he wasn't bleeding, so there's as much basis as not to put weight on the hankie.
    • In sum, several story elements are incongruous for Trial By Fire and One Giant Leap to be on the same night, and there is no strong reason in-story (or even off-story) that the GN couldn't have happened on the night of Better Halves. --Mercury McKinnon 02:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
      • I just don't think there's enough evidence to pin it down to a specific date one way or the other. October 7th makes as much sense as any, but it feels a little odd that they would release a graphic novel set three or four episodes in the future. I don't see any reason it can't be the same night as the fundraiser, but I agree it would be an odd decision for him to ditch his cronies and suddenly walk around. I think this is one of those cases where we're just going to have to be happy with a very rough estimate (like "early October"). Once we break away from the release order chronology we don't have much to go on ... it really could be any day before the election.--Hardvice (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
        • I agree that we can't pin a specific date, but we can (and do) indicate approximate, reasonably accurate dates in the Timeline articles. If we give more weight to in-story indicators over off-story (as I think we have generally done in the Wiki), it just makes a lot more sense to put in October 7.
        • (As to your comment that the GN could happen any day before the election... yes, that is not impossible, but a nearer date to October 4 is suggested in the GN itself because the chat with Peter ("Aren't you curious how this happened?" and getting the answers from Suresh) is still weighing heavily on Nathan's mind. Nathan and Peter don't have any new interaction between October 4 and 7. (They briefly meet the morning after October 4 at Peter's place but they still talk about Suresh). Nathan doesn't see Peter again until October 8 (the family brunch), and by then Peter's focus has shifted to future Hiro's message and specifically getting the missing painting from Linderman. Reasonably this new confrontation would have preoccupied Nathan's mind from that point.)
        • I have to reiterate that the release order doesn't convey a pattern/sequence at all. The GNs are set at various times relative to the week's episode. And don't we already have the case of How Do You Stop an Exploding Man? which seems to be set closer to the episodes Run! and Unexpected -- a good 3 or 4 episodes after Godsend (the episode the same week as GN)? --Mercury McKinnon 03:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
          • Again, no date can be confirmed. Our best estimate is early October. Yes, it could well be the 7th, but if we put it on the 7th, that sounds like that date is confirmed, which it isn't. Nowhere on this Wiki do we state what's most likely as if it were fact; this is no exception. This is not the same as extrapolating a date from a receipt or a newspaper or how many times night has passed; there's simply no event in the graphic novel that grounds it to a specific date by anything but speculation. Other approximate dates in the timeline are reasoned from known events; this is pure supposition based on what's most likely.--Hardvice (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
            • I absolutely agree that the Wiki should never cite unconfirmed statements as if they were fact. What I don't see is how including a statement such as "Trial By Fire took place approximately on October 7" would violate this principle (i.e., that this is an instance of an unconfirmed statement being passed off as fact).
            • I can see how the statement "Trial By Fire took place on October 7" is violative; it's an unconfirmed statement, and the way it's worded presents it as definite fact. The other statement, in contrast, is both (a) verifiable/confirmable demonstrably, and (b) its wording clearly is of a subordinate level as to whether the 7th is the singular/specific date of the action. By either of these reasons, it doesn't seem to go against the principle. The word approximately makes all the difference. In wikis, the language and construction used to present information is key always.
            • The word approximately here is not the same as possibly; it does not indicate simple supposition -- rather, that the info was arrived at after a (logical) process of approximation. And October 7 is reasoned from known events. Nathan's thoughts on the first page indicate that the story is set proximately after October 4. The lack of rain, Nathan walking at night by himself... These are all particulars to be considered that make the 7th a reasonably good approximation.
            • Isn't this just like Linderman's cop picking up Niki and Micah in One Giant Leap. We know for a fact they go to Sakamoto on the 5th. But the cop scene can take place on either October 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th. There isn't enough to unquestionably ground the scene to a single specific date, but the best approximation is the 5th. Still, we list these 2 pieces of information in the timeline to reflect their respective levels of accuracy:
==October 5, 2006==
  • (approx.) Linderman's cop picks up Niki & Micah.
  • Niki meets Sakamoto and is instructed to rendezvous with Nathan.
  • I see the goal of the Wiki as to provide the most accurate information possible. The standard need not be just "100%-certain truth" but a "reasonably high degree of accuracy". The inclusion of approximate information, that is clearly indicated as such, is still useful and desirable, without misrepresenting the false as true, which I think is the essence of the principle. --Mercury McKinnon 19:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Is it possible to say whatever you've just said in a comment shorter than six paragraphs? Every time I express an opinion, it seems I'm accosted with a largely unnecessary essay that merely repeats much of the last largely unnecessary essay.--Hardvice (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I have to say I agree with Hardvice (on more than one count) here. If we can't pin it down, putting it under a general "October" heading will have to suffice. I already have an issue with all the "approx" notes (a date is a date--somebody did something on a particular date, not on an approximate date) but that's another story. Putting it under October 7 or any other date really is speculation, or at least leads the reader believe that that was the particular day. It's best under a general heading. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hi. I'm sorry, but again I really don't see why you claim a reader would be misled which dates are approximate and which are certain when which is which is clearly indicated (as in my example for the Linderman cop and Sakamoto scenes above). And, with all respect, do I really have to point out that tagging as "approximate" doesn't mean that an event didn't happen on a particular date. It means the event happened on a particular date, but that date, being uncertain, has been approximated as date X. (It's having to address these kinds of responses that make one have to talk at length.) --Mercury McKinnon 09:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Or you could, y'know, not feel the need to respond to every single opinion expressed on a talk page. Just a suggestion.--Hardvice (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Quite simply (hmm), if a date's not certain, it should go under a more general category. It either did or didn't happen on date X, not "approx". If it can't be confirmed, the reasoning should be in the notes of an appropriate article, or the event should go where we can confirm it--like "Early October" or "October 24-31, 2006".... But approximating dates is not really the issue here, is it? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
  • OK. If you've noticed I've been trying to get the basis of your objection against indicating approximate dates. I've been addressing the objections in turn, and (where I thought they don't hold up) have offered rebuttals. (Your 2 most recent points being that "approximate dates are misleading to readers" and "indicating a date as "approximate" makes no sense as things don't happen on an 'approximate date'". I guess you're indirectly acknowledging my counterpoints since you've switched tack -- let's just make that clear please). On your new point, that a more general date should be used even over a well-supported approximate date... again, what is the rationale for saying "should be"? I thought it didn't have to be pointed out that such a perspective runs counter to the established use of approximate dates in the field of chronology -- whether it be for real-world history or fictional ones (such as the Lord of the Rings). This is precisely why there's the word "circa", indicative of an approximate date, which you must have heard of before. I do agree that a footnote is desirable to clarify the approximation. --Mercury McKinnon 01:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I've given you the basis of my objection and don't care to rehash what I've already said. If you really want to know what I think, read above. Please don't make faulty assumptions--I acknowledge your counterpoints, but don't agree with them at all. I haven't switched tack. I just don't feel the need to reply to every post or take issue with every thought expressed in a thread. I'm growing very very tired of this discussion. As I tell my second graders, I refuse to repeat myself. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sound approximate dates are perfectly acceptable; the reasons have been given. Your unwillingness to acknowledge and respond to questions on the validity of your points has shown quite clearly that further discussion on the subject would be wasted on you. This thread stands for itself as to who has made erroneous assumptions and unsound pronouncements, who has refused to clarify points and has been unreceptive to attempts at rational dialogue. I hope your students will learn to be generous, open-minded and responsive, and big enough to own up where they are mistaken, or to stay out of discussions otherwise. --Mercury McKinnon 12:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Oh what the hell, let's try this one more time: Every other date on the timeline, with the exception of post-Fallout dates which are all necessarily (at the moment) relative to one another, can be derived from a known, confirmed date (two days after the eclipse, three days after Nathan's hotel stay, etc.) Approximate dates are speculation, and speculation is still not acceptable in this (or any other) article's main body. There is a difference between a date which is derived or computed and a date which is (however soundly) guessed. The former is acceptable; the latter is not. Now, as it stands, there's only one other approximate date in this portion of the timeline: Niki's phone call from Micah. But even that is not the same as Trial By Fire: it must, necessarily, either be October 1 or October 2 because of the chronology of subsequent events. Trial By Fire only has one bounding item of chronology--the conversation on October 4. It cannot in any way be related to a known, confirmed date without resorting to speculation, and even approximating a date is speculative in this case. Approximating "October 1" for Niki's phone call when the latest it can possibly be is October 2 is nothing like approximating October 7 (or whatever) for Trial By Fire when it could possibly be as late as November 6. Yes, it almost certainly has to be within a few days of the conversation, but it's impossible to completely rule out any date prior to the election in this case. That is not the case with any other date on the timeline. Few people would accept "approximately October 7" as a description of a date which could be as late as November 6, and saying so implies that there's some reason to assume October 7 is correct. Furthermore, there is simply no reason to resort to approximation of this sort; we can instead just state what we know (that this is after the conversation). This is the case for any "approximate" date we might want to add to this timeline--we're better off simply stating what we know (that it must be between events X and Y) rather than speculating. With that in mind, there's no need to clarify points, assume someone has misunderstood someone else, accuse someone of erroneous assumptions, or anything of the sort. We'll simply continue to apply the same standard as every other article: confirmed information good, speculation bad. No matter how sound an approximate date may be, it is speculation. We will instead simply say what can be determined about the date of an event, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions and make their own approximations as appropriate. Now I am sure I have either ignored or misunderstood or misapplied or otherwise been totally way too stupid to understand all of your brilliant but frankly irrelevant points, and I'm sure there's a five-page essay waiting for me where you mention all the same points for the thirty-fifth time, but I thought it was important to state, yet again, that speculation or approximation, no matter how labeled or reasoned, is not appropriate for the body of this or any other article--Hardvice (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Hi. Please clarify why you seem to be saying that absolute certainty is the only standard for inclusion in the timeline -- that a reasonably/demonstrably high degree of accuracy (as with some well-approximated info) is not acceptable. Thanks. --Mercury McKinnon 09:02, 25 April 2007 (EDT)