Talk:Timeline

Dates on the timeline should be either in Before Common Era (BCE) or Common Era (CE), rather than BC or AD, please. -- Tullis 08:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we've got someone who, on a daily basis, changes it to BC/AD. This repeated vandalism is beginning to become problematic. Should the article be locked down or should we just outwait the vandal?


 * I'm not prepared to waste my time, or make others waste theirs, by constantly changing this article back and forth. The individual is being blocked forthwith and I've replaced the note about dates being in BCE/CE. If there are any more problems with this BC/AD correction, I'll lock the article. --Tullis 07:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is now locked to unregistered users. Next stage is making it sysop only and I really don't want to do that. Hopefully this will stop the vandalism. --Tullis 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the so called "vandal" - I would like to apologize if I have caused you any inconvenience(I never saw this discussion page until today after you locked it) but I had my reasons for changing it to AD and BC. I see BCE and CE and I see people yet again trying to eliminate Christ from something; this time it is how we record our years. When BCE is used instead of BC(before Christ) and CE instead of AD(anno domini-which is translated to- in the year of our Lord) it just upsets me. I was only trying to give our Lord and Savior the recognition he deserves. I would greatly appreciate it if you changed it to BC and AD but it is out of my hands and the only thing I can do is pray for you. I hope you have a nice day Tullis.

Goodbye


 * Thanks for taking the time to leave a message and explain. I understand your position and I'm sorry if you're upset, but we have to cater to everybody, including Christians, those of other faiths and those without religion. If it's any consolation, according to my research the Common Era distinction was actually developed by a Christian monk in the first place. --Tullis 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies
I noticed a problem with the timeline, specifically the founding of the colony Demeter before the discovery of the Charon Relay, I have since corrected that and fine-tuned a few other dates. -- Ninsegtari 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The date for the Charon Relay's discovery is given in-game and in Mass Effect: Revelation as being 2149, but in the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183 as being 2156. I'd have thought 2156 was the correct date - it seems very impressive that it only took a single year to decipher the Prothean data cache and travel across the solar system to Pluto. But that Galactic Codex timeline doesn't mention Demeter at all, and says Eden Prime was the first true extra-solar colony (which the game seems to bear out). So there seems to be some discrepancy between the in-game Codex and other sources. --Tullis 07:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Daturfman101 11:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Well, the in-game codex says the date is 2149, so I think thats the more trustworthy source.


 * As I've mentioned in other places (I know this comment is over a month old), the BW writers had little time to proof the print codex, which was written by MS based on our docs. Unfortunately, they were just given a pile of docs, not all of which were "living" and kept up to date. When the print codex contradicts information presented in-game, please give precedence to what's in-game.


 * Demeter was the first extra-solar colony. Eden Prime was the first colony on the far side of the mass relay. Humanity had FTL mass effect drive before the Charon Relay was activated. In fact, they used said FTL drive to get to Charon quickly once they knew what it was.


 * The Skyllian Blitz (Elysium) was in 2176. --Stormwaltz 20:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a discrepancy with the Elysium Blitz date. The Elysium page says 2178, and this says 2176. Anyone certain of which of the two it is? 76.15.134.106 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, I've already corrected the Elysium dates (that one wasn't down to misinterpretation of docs, just your fearless admin doing another typo. : --Tullis 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to point out that Leviathan of Dis was discovered and went missing in '63, not '73. It's own page says so. Typo? Anyhoo, only noticed because of the possiblity of the Leviathan being Sovereign. SjadoJai 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Fixed. But if you see stuff like that, feel free to change it. : )
 * As for it being Sovereign, the connection's been suggested before, but we know from Mass Effect: Revelation that Sovereign was discovered while orbiting a planet near the Perseus Veil. And yes, I suppose it's possible that the batarian crew was indoctrinated and put it there, but the Leviathan is specifically described as being a corpse. --Tullis 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe it is described as an apparent corpse, as in the survey team to video of it, but wasn't able to actually study it before it was taken by the batarians. Given Sovereign's crustacean-like appearance, being mistaken for a skeletal corpse is understandable. Anyhoo, this should probably be taken up on that page instead of here. Thanks. SjadoJai 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to throw in my two cents- Sovereign is described as being larger than any known ship in any known fleet. Therefor it strikes me as extremely unlikely that a Reaper (corpse or otherwise) could have been secreted out of the system by a batarian Dreadnought, as the Leviathan was. SpartHawg948 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough...
There's at least six topics in this Wiki that mention "Saren's Brother", PLEASE cite your sources and references as to where that came from because there's no mention in the game of Saren ever having a brother and neither is there any mention of him having a brother in the Revelations book.

This needs to be edited as soon as possible. --Digital Holocaust 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Mass Effect Revelation, pg. 275 (Ch. 19, paragraph 2) -  ' "Personal information on Spectres is sealed," (Anita Goyle) told him, "but our intel dug up something interesting. Seems he lost his brother during the First Contact War." '  --Tullis 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the impression everyone was using page 129 for the 'brother' reference. :P


 * It also may be really useful to add an actual citation link to the articles where the references to his brother are made. Saves a lot of confusion in the future if people overlook it in the book. --Digital Holocaust 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, the editing blitz just kind of got me by surprise. I like your conscientiousness, though. :) . Hrm. I added a link to Saren's page, but you're right. Maybe there should be something on Saren's Talk page about his brother, maybe with this quote on there, and links to that on the aforementioned pages so people know it's canon. --Tullis 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to add citation links yet, but when I find out, I can do a few around the site if you like. Just lemme get the hang of this thing first. --Digital Holocaust 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Organising
Given the ammount of data avaliable, and how it's only set to increase dramatically, do you think it would be wise to create articles for years rather than bunching them up all on the same page? There's pros and cons to such an approach, but given the ammount of data present, segmentation is perhaps preferable to clutter.--Hawki 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look into a more efficient and non-clutter way to do it. In the meantime there are a couple of things on the timeline that need attention; I think it would be wise to start the timeline with the disappearance of the Protheans rather than the preceding dates, however relevant they are. Also, ME: Ascension is set in late 2183, not 2184. The only 2184 date we have is the projected completion of the Asteroid X57-to-orbital-facility project. --Tullis 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A template I've found useful is the one at Halopedia, found here, which, as an admin at the StarCraft wiki, I found useful and applied it here. Mass Effect doesn't have many month dates, but with over 50 year entries, it seems to be enough to warrant a similar template.

Concerning the protehans...don't worry, I'm not going to embark on an edit war, respecting the will of the admins. However, does the timing of their extinction really have the same impact it once did? We, as users, have the benefit of omnipitance, knowing things that even characters in the game don't. Unlike the majority of the galaxy, we know that the protehans were meerly the latest in a line of poor sods to be overcome by the Reapers in an eternal cycle. From what we know, the protheans aren't the beginning of the current galactic era, but meerly a race amongst many that preceeded it. To us, their importance is somewhat marginalized.

As for Ascension, I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive, so my knowledge of its info is limited. However, it's been stated to occur "a few months" after Mass Effect. The game has to at least start in the latter half of 2183, as Ashley sent the email to her sister in late June, which would be before the geth attacked Eden Prime. I'd be willing to guess that the events of ME1 took place over a few months. Add another few months, and that seemingly places Ascension in early 2184.

Of course, if Ascension is specifically stated to take place in '83 or something to that effect, then that's something else entirely.--Hawki 00:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * : ) My job as an admin is to organise and manage, not lay down the law and demand people follow it. The reason I'd want to start with the Prothean extinction is that almost all events in the Mass Effect universe flow from that point. It's the single major event that kicks everything off. Regardless, thanks for all your hard work on the Timeline, Hawki. --Tullis 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob :)

Have to get back to uni work now, but I can see your point about the protehans. Maybe a "Ancient History" or "Pre-history" entry could cover the earlier, obscure events. It keeps the info, but doesn't marginalize the prothean extinction. Of course, if we get a date as to the very first Reaper invasion (or however they came about), we may want to start from there.--Hawki 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sheps Birthday
It might be April 11th, it might be the 4th of November. It really depends on which system you use, but it's far more likely to be November. Either way, the best solution is to just change it from 'April 11th' to '4.11.2154' as in the trailer for ME2 --DarthWindu 15:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After the previous issue on Shepard's page, I agree. (Meant to do that yesterday and forgot. :) ) --Tullis 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ash's age when she enlists
This timeline puts Ashley at about the age of 16 when she finishes highschool and enlists?


 * Yes, and? By current standards, a 17 year old can enlist in the United States Military with parental consent, and one can be considered part of the military if you sign up for the delayed enlistment program, which you can do at 16. It is not unreasonable to assume that this standard has continued in the SA (as it's military was originally formed by the existing Earth militaries).SpartHawg948 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Samara's birth
So we know Samara is at least 600 years old by 2185, the time of Mass Effect 2. Even assuming that it's 600 years flat, that means she was born in 1585 CE, or the 1500's roughly. So how would Samara's birth be added in here? Would it be okay to just say something like "1500 CE (approximate) - Samara is born". Since squad mates from the first game are in, I'm assuming those from this game need to be added into the timeline too if appropriate. 164.107.91.46 00:52, December 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Get an exact year, and then it can be added. We're not gonna assume it's 600 yrs old flat b/c assuming is speculation, and speculation is a no-no. Once we get exact years in which the ME2 squad members were born, then they can be added to the timeline. SpartHawg948 01:48, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

New dates
As I played the first game, I noticed dates mentioned in the game which are not included in the timeline. I would like to add these dates to the timeline. I would like to know what is permissible and what is not. Thanks.Throwback 04:08, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Date Extrapolation Speculation
So there have been a lot of changes over the past little while made to the timeline, and a couple of points should probably be brought up about this... 1) Not EVERYTHING is noteworthy enough to be on the timeline (such as, for example, Officer Lang being assigned to the Citadel). Major events only please. 2) We generally prefer dates that are "set in stone" over dates that are extrapolated by individual users: IE Dates mentioned in the Codex or the timeline in the print version of the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. It's also a good idea not to take rough figures uttered by individuals as dialogue as solid numbers to base the article off of, and it is also important to remember that assumptions are not fact. For example, the geth were created 300 years before the game. They did not rebel then. It was some time later, and no, we don't know that it was very shortly thereafter. And they were last sighted beyond the Perseus Veil about 200 years ago, this in no way indicates that this was the end of their war with the quarians. So please people, remember this: We keep the figures rough because the exact years have not been stated by BioWare. If you think you know better than BioWare, by all means, post it on your own page. SpartHawg948 18:01, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the timeline can be improved. There are items that are badly out of shape. For instance, the genophage was employed near the end of the Krogan Rebellion, or matters relating to the Geth are inaccurate. However, I just don't feel that my improvements would be understood nor accepted. (My dear chap, 1800 and 19th century are not the same thing. That one is a year, and this one refers to all the years in a century.) One last point I would like to add to show my understanding of what is in the timeline: "Driven from their home system by the geth nearly three centuries ago, most quarians now live aboard the Migrant Fleet" (Codex: Quarians; dialogue with Tali confirms this). In other words, the Geth rebelled three centuries ago and sent the Quarians into exile.Throwback 09:55, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Throwback, please watch your attitude toward other users. Discussing changes is fine; being patronising while doing so (referring to "my dear chap") is not. --Tullis 12:59, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * But again, you are arbitrarily imposing start and stop years on events when no such dates are known! You are depicting the Geth War as starting at a certain time because the Codex states that the geth were created (not rebelled, CREATED) 300 years prior, and depicting the was as ending on a date reached through the use of dialogue from a shell-shocked marine who had just watched her entire unit killed and threw a rough estimate out, and that wasn't even an estimate of when the war ended, just the last time anyone saw the geth! As for the quote about the geth, that one assumes that the only system the quarians had to be driven from is their own home system, and that they were driven from it soon after the initial rebellion. Neither of these assumptions is backed up by fact. This is not improving! This is inventing out of whole cloth and inserting into an article for reasons unknown. If a date isn't stated, any attempts to extrapolate it through your own means are speculative, which will not fly. Want the dates to show up anyways? Put them on your userpage. You can also use it to tell everyone what a jerk I am and tell them about how I (according to you, anyways) feel that I have "authorial control" over this page. Meanwhile, I'll be here keeping the speculation out! :) SpartHawg948 20:50, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Throwing in my response to an initial point of this thread (the not everything should be in the timeline part): small stuff like Lang becoming a C-Sec officer and Ashley getting an email from her sister on June 17 of 2183 don't fit, I agree. Just because we know the exact date of something doesn't make it automatically notable. If Lang had never joined C-Sec, and Ashley had never gotten that email, it wouldn't change much. Stuff like that doesn't go in the history books, to be blunt. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:44, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * But... but it was an email from her sister gossiping about boys! Of course it's historically significant! : )
 * Fair point there; I like having some stuff from the planets in there, but noting absolutely everything that has a date may get out of hand. --Tullis 11:36, January 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * SpartHawg948 - I don't understand your words - "As for the quote about the geth, that one assumes that the only system the quarians had to be driven from is their own home system, and that they were driven from it soon after the initial rebellion. Neither of these assumptions is backed up by fact." These are not assumptions, these are facts. What we don't know is the exact year of the creation, the rebellion, and the first year of the diaspora.Throwback 03:17, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you know for a fact that the only system the quarians inhabited was their own, and that therefor all the Geth War consisted of was the geth driving the quarians from one system? I'd love to see the source! Though one wonders why they needed so many large ships capable of long-distance travel if they only inhabited one system. And you have a source that shows that they were driven off their homeworld soon after the war started, and not, say, years later? Again, I'd love to see the source! And as you say, we don't know the years they were created, rebelled, or when the quarians fled, so how can they be placed on the timeline with "concrete" dates? SpartHawg948 03:21, January 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet we do do have a definite year - 1900 - which is not supported by the available material. I am currently compiling the quotes from the codex-es and individuals on this matter. (BTW, Kaiden Alenko, not Ashley Williams, stated when the Geth were last seen.) Let's talk about the Geth after I have completed this work. Maybe we can arrive at a consensus.Throwback 03:34, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait... in one post you say we don't have a definite year "What we don't know is the exact year of the creation, the rebellion, and the first year of the diaspora", then when I respond, "we do do have a definite year"? I'm so confused! Also, I'd still consider the Codex a better source on the geth (remember, it's geth, not Geth) than Lt Alenko. Nothing presented about him shows or implies that he is any more knowledgeable about the geth, or their history, than the average Joe Blow off the street. But can I interpret the fact that no sources for the claims I questioned in my previous post were provided as meaning that there are no sources for the "one quarian system" and "rapid expulsion from their homeworld" claims? SpartHawg948 03:40, January 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at the timeline. The Geth War is given as occurring in approximate 1900 CE. This is not supported by the material. We know from an accurate source (your words), the Galactic Codex: Essentials, that the Geth were invented nearly 300 years ago. From pg. 15, The geth are a bipedal humanoid race of networked artificial intelligences (AI). They were created nearly 300 years go by the quarians as laborers and tools of war. When the geth began to question their masters, geth began to question their masters, the quarians attempted to exterminate them. The geth won the resulting war. The example of the geth has led to legal, systematic repression of AIs in galactic society. If we taken this statement at face value, the Geth were created in the late 19th century (2183-300=1883, or late 19th century). There is another reason this entry is wrong. A reader may assume, wrongly, that the creation, rebellion, and diaspora all occurred in a single year. We know from Tali that the war lasted a long time. It probably began in the home system and spread to the quarian colonies. (Again, from her testimony when asked by Shepard abour the Geth.)Throwback 04:02, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1883 is approximately 1900. It's 17 years off, hence the "approximate". The entire Codex uses approximations and rounding to the nearest 10 or 100. Look at the GC:E Edition 2183. How often do you see a year given that doesn't end in 0? 4 times. The four most recent events, and ones humans were on the scene for and would have the exact date for. And yes, 1883 is nearly 300 years prior to the game. Again, only 17 years off. So I'd say the 1900 CE figure is supported by the material. And you have to figure, the 300 figure you are using to get the year 1883 is extrapolated from a quote that says "nearly 300 years ago". Nearly 300 years before 2183 does not necessarily mean 1883. It could be 1875, or 1896, or any year in that ballpark. 1883 seems to be the item not supported by the material. SpartHawg948 04:10, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

1900 CE-2100 CE changed to 900 CE-2100 CE
Going forward, if I change dates, in support of the changes, I will include the relevant source material. My philosophy is that ‘filmed’ material takes precedence over the written material, and I will dismiss the latter if it contradicts the former.

Galactic Codex: Essentials (Edition 2183)

Pg. 3 (from the timeline) “900-2100 CE. Galactic community continues to expand, new species are discovered, and a long period of peace and prosperity follows.”

Pg. 7 “Ever since the turian seat on the Council was established, the number of Council races has remained at three to the present day. Under the “three great races”, as they are sometimes called, the galaxy experienced a long period of peace, expansion, and discovery. It was not completely without conflict or instability, but for 1,200 years, the Citadel Council considered themselves a mighty empire of strength and prosperity.”

Pg. 13 “One of the lasting consequences of the First Contact War with the turians is its interruption of a 1,200-year peace.”

Throwback 03:17, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be your philosophy, but BioWare has not stated which takes canonical precedence, written material presented as a historical or encyclopedic account (such as the Codex) or so-called "filmed" material, like in-game dialogue. Since no official position has been set, any assumptions over which takes precedence are speculation. However, I would be inclined to take said written historical/encyclopedic entries as more accurate than statements by individuals who, being human (or krogan, or whatever...) are prone to make generalizations, exaggerations, misstatements, etc. SpartHawg948 03:25, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

I stated this as my philosophy. I am being transparent in my methodology. Throwback 03:39, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine if it's a personal philosophy, but if it's used as justification for making changes to articles, that's when it becomes an issue. SpartHawg948 03:42, January 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any changes which are made to the timeline are based on what is in the available material. I change the timeline entries in an effort at creating greater accuracy. I will not add what is not mentioned. Look above. I changed the timeline from a less accurate date to a more accurate date. This is supported by the material. I did not add anything which wasn't already in the material.Throwback 03:52, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit did improve the accuracy of the article, which is why not once have I questioned it. I was merely pointing out that, as BioWare has yet to announce any policy on canonical precedence, any philosophies must be left out of editing. As such, I was a little curious as to why it was necessary to mention your philosophy in the second sentence of your first post, which is why I decided to add a friendly reminder that personal philosophies are irrelevant when dealing with things of this nature. We've had too many incidents in the past where people wanted to apply their own personal "philosophies" regardless of the fact that these may directly contradict in-game fact, so I was just playing it safe by trying to ensure this isn't going to be one of those times. Just trying to ensure things run smoothly around here. SpartHawg948 03:59, January 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure I like the change as is, the year range sticks out like a sore thumb. The timeline was neatly divided into separate eras with ostensible divisions, and now there's overlap, a single "sub-era" which envelops events between two eras. Since the peace starts at 900, I'd end the Early Council Period there, and have the Contemporary period absorb the events up to 900. Maybe change "Contemporary Period" to "Classic Council Period". I'll make the changes so you can what I'm thinking of. It goes without saying that if they're too disagreeable, revert me. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:19, January 16, 2010 (UTC)