Talk:World of Greyhawk Timeline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Citation Standardization?
This is going to become one of the largest Greyhawk wiki stubs, and to keep everything on the level I'd like to suggest that we cite every single reference on this bad boy along the lines that several have been cited already (reference, ##.##). This will make it easier to sort out conflicting dates as we populate this page. Thoughts? --Iquander 23:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm for it (too few hours in the day, dammit!). We might want to consider breaking it down into smaller articles as well, like the FR timeline.-Robbstrd 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking it Down
I don't really like the way the FR one is broken down. Seems arbitrary. I think we should wait until this one becomes unwieldy (and it will, trust me) before worrying about that. For now a simple scroll-down is all you need to get the big picture, and I think that's good. Added some bits on epochs and ages, though. Couldn't resist. --Iquander 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linking
I know Wikipedia convention is to have one article link to another only once if the subject is mentioned multiple times. Some of the longer articles have the same link multiple times, & in the case of timelines, I think linking to the same page multiple times is not excessive (unless it's within the same date header, of course). After all, who wants to keep scrolling to find a link?-Robbstrd 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Remember, some of these citations (for example) that are right next to each other now won't be anywhere near each other in a couple of years when this is more fully fleshed out. For now I'm making all of the citations links and linking anything that seems appropriate in individual entries. We can clean it up later.--Iquander 00:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That Pesky Year 0
I saw that you changed my dating for the Battle of a Fortnight's Length from -109 CY to -110 CY. I am possibly mistaken, but don't you need to subtract 1 from all pre-1 dates? I think relying overmuch on the unofficial GreyChrondex is a bit of a mistake. It's helpful as a guideline, but I would strongly recommend that we limit ourselves to citing actual in-print sources, especially for things like dates.
If I'm wrong about subtracting 1 from BCY dates please let me know. It is admittedly confusing.--Iquander 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The LGG has 1235 OR as being equivalent to 591 CY (page 13). On page 23, The Battle of a Fortnight's Length takes place in "535 OR, or -109 CY." However, subtracting 535 from 1235 gives us 700, so the BoaFL took place 700 years before 591 CY. Subtracting 700 from 591 does give us -109, but this is actually only 699 years, not 700, because we don't have a year 0 (see p13 of the LGG for the -5 to 5 CY=9 years example). Therefore, we need to add one more year, placing the true date of the BoaFL at -110 CY, not -109 CY (making the LGG on p23 in error).
- I find an easy way to think about it is, "add one year when calculating negative dates (ex: 600 years ago), & subtract one year when calculating amount of time passed (ex: how many years since the the Rain of Colorless Fire?)." Hope this clears things up.--Robbstrd 18:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)