FANDOM


This is the talk page for Timeline/Archive1.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.


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)
This explaination is rather silly, since our calendar is already mired in various references to not merely Christian but pagan, astrological and Jewish beliefs. If you wanted to remove all reference to religion from calendar dates, you'd have to rename the days and get rid of the 7-day week among other things. Like it or not, such things have infiltrated the western culture and thus the language. Hand-wringing over the use of 'Christ' is the only reason I can see for this sort of change. -- Rhine1 15:00, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Do what now? I'll remind you that we do have a policy about not insulting other users (and calling their comments silly does seem a bit insulting). Regardless, if your aim is to re-open this debate and get the dating system on this wiki changed back from BCE/CE to BC/AD, you needn't bother. BioWare has made it clear that BCE/CE is used in the Mass Effect universe, and BioWare is the ultimate arbiter of these things around here. What they say, goes. SpartHawg948 23:05, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

DiscrepanciesEdit

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.
A few things:
  1. Revelations explicitly stated that some insane number of things happened in the first year to the point that many were suspicious that the cache had been discovered earlier, only made public when the major governments had come close to an agreement of what to do going forward. I can't remember whether Charon was in that list, but I believe that would be about right. At least, I'm pretty sure it was Revelations - it might've been Ascension. It was one of the novels, either way.
  2. Revelations explicitly stated that humanity was restricted to its own solar system until Charon. On a similar note: Pluto is up to 50AU from the Sun. The nearest star is 268,000 AUs. Even if our FTL drives were going equivalent AU's to highway speeds are in KM, half an hour to Pluto (or 100AU/hr) would mean 2680 hrs to the nearest star which is 112 days. Imagine how far it must be to get to Eden Prime?
  3. Humanity went from "stuck in our own solar system" to "potential Council Member" in 31 years prior to the Reaper invasion - and I note "potential Council Member" because the very fact that humanity was already being talked about for joining the Council indicates how far the Alliance had gotten. When that sort of scale is considered, 1 year to take the ruins and somehow use it to active Charon (the instructions were apparently already there) isn't outside the realm of plausibility. Heck, if the information is near the surface, all you need is the time to decipher the language and then you can find this knowledge quickly.
--forgottenlord 17:15, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
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... Edit

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)

OrganisingEdit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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 Edit

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)
Hence me deleting it after someone else apparently put it in anyway. --Tullis 13:55, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

New dates Edit

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 Edit

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)
First, the word nearly is defined as "almost, but not quite; slightly short of". So, when I say nearly 100 years ago that Comet's Halley was seen from Earth, I am saying that this event occurred no earlier than 1910. The same applies to what is said here. One of the dates you list, 1875, is clearly wrong. Now, as to years, your figure is wrong. I count 27 additional years (pg. 3 & 23), of which 10 are galactic standard years. Let's look at the timeline carefully. These are not approximate dates. These are exact years. Each year is supported by the galactic standard year. (The math is pretty easy - GSY x 1.043 = EY. Even with rounding, the dates match.) There are a few mistakes. The correct galactic standard years for events after 2148 are as follows: 2156 (2547 GSY) and 2165 (2556 GSY). These later dates support the contention that the earlier dates are close enough to the Earth years to be considered accurate. There are discrepancies between the dating in the Codex and the game. For instance, Avina states that roughly 1304 galactic standard years ago the turians were granted a seat on the Council. So, 2572 minus 1304 is 1268. 1268 multiplied by 1.043 is 1322.524, or 1322 Earth years. 1322 minus 500 is 822. (And the Codex on the turians states that roughly 1200 years ago that turians assumed the peacekeeping role of the Citadel. This places this event no earlier than 983. These dates don't match the Galactic Codex, and they need to be reconciled.) When speaking of events which are not tied down as these events are, a conservative approach is to place the events in a century. For instance, I would say this, the geth were created in the 19th century and, more specific, the late 19th century. I would never say 1900. When reading history, I see the word approximate most commonly applied to dates that are distant in time. In sum, I feel you are misreading the Codex and applying assumptions that don't apply. 24.4.110.125 06:12, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, as to that: I was referring specifically to the timeline on page 3, as the timeline on page 23 falls into the category of "recent events, and ones humans were on the scene for and would have the exact date for." Seems like I covered those, no? As for the rest, it essentially seems to come down to quibbling over semantics. The point stands that 1883 is approximately 1900 when talking about broad swathes of history, and 1900 is nearly 300 years before 2183. It's less than 300 years prior, or "slightly short of" 300 years (thanks for providing that definition, it really helped!). And while a conservative approach by your standards would be to refer to the century the event occurred in, this doesn't seem to be BioWare's approach, now would it? And the approach BioWare uses is the only one that matters. While you would never say 1900, BioWare did say 1900. End of story. And again, the 300 years prior is not based off an exact figure, it's based off a "nearly 300 years ago" statement. I'm not misreading anything, but it seems to me you are attempting to apply your own standards to this timeline, which conforms to the standards of those who wrote it (ie the writers at BioWare) and this does mean that there may be inconsistencies sometimes. All we can do is note it in trivia sections and such, and hope they correct or retcon it later, not make things up ourselves in an attempt to "fix" it. SpartHawg948 06:47, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

1900 CE-2100 CE changed to 900 CE-2100 CE Edit

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)
My only problem is that the GC:E Edition 2183 specifies that the period of peace and all that lasts from 900-2100. Overlap in a a timeline isn't necessarily a bad thing. If a specific event happens during a larger time period, I see no problem with overlap. SpartHawg948 05:23, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Upon further review though, there were some errors with the previous version that are now fixed (seemed like some of it was pure speculation, and improper race name caps) so unless a compelling case can be made to go back to the version you reverted, I'm not going to object. SpartHawg948 05:26, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings Edit

Please don't put two spoiler tags together. The idea of having a generic spoiler tag is to say "this article generally contains spoilers, read at your own risk." If there's spoilers for something specific, the tag should go above it.

But I want to stick with one spoiler tag for the Timeline: there's not enough content to support having dozens of spoiler tags at the bottom of the page, and one alert at the top should be enough. --Tullis 13:53, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

200 BCE - 1 CE sources Edit

This section states that this period is when the batarians, hanar, quarians and elcor made first contact with the Citadel. What are the sources for this? Avina discusses the volus in detail around this period, but I don't think she mentions these other species and I can't find anything in Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183. --Tullis 05:17, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

298,000 BCE? Edit

This video at 0:46 shows the description of the planet Helyme in ME2. According to said description, this planet is thought to have been the homeworld of the arthenn, a spacefaring species which disappeared 300,000 years ago. Should this info be added in, or is it too soon or insignificant to do so? -- Commdor (Talk) 19:38, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to wait and see if we get a bit more info. It'd be rather odd if the first time a spacefaring species shows up on the timeline is when they disappear. Now, if that's all the info that we end up getting about them, then we'll have to run with it, but I'd prefer to see if we get a little more info first. SpartHawg948 20:19, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense, their relevance outside of lore does have yet to be established. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:26, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Why the revision? Edit

SpratHawg948,

I have re-aligned the timeline to match was presented in the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183 on page 3. There are two periods of 1,200 years, a 200-year intermediate period, and a second intermediate period of indeterminate length. I have brought the timeline to more closely match this sequence. I have changed the titles so that they are less speculative and more concrete. By saying something is early, there is the implication there is a middle and an end, as in, Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, and Late Middle Ages. We don't know how many more 1,200 year periods the Council will enjoy, or if there will be other periods of differing lengths. I have included a summary of each period which can be updated. Aside from the last summary, which is for the ‘present day’, I have included a note which states the years are estimates. This is how the designers intended as they wrote on page 2 of the above pamphlet – The years listed in this timeline are estimates. Finally, I corrected the error that the Rachni Wars ended the first period. In fact, the krogan rebellions ended the first period. I, also, pushed back the earliest date to the Big Bang. There are events mentioned in the game's codex-es and dialog which pre-date the Prothean extinction, and I have pushed the date of the 2nd Intermediate Period to 2182. Again, there may be events that occurred in the years 2180 to 2182.Throwback 22:59, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

1) I thought you were no longer making public edits because we were interfering in your work?
2) I've removed the summaries as there is no point summarising events that are then summarised beneath the summary.
3) I think we may as well just remove the "period" names altogether and just have the dates. Mine weren't any better and this is verging on fanon; we're effectively making up names for periods here. --Tullis 23:08, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I thought I could still contribute. As for the names, the designers name one of these blocks of time as a period. As in 900-1200 CE: Galactic community continues to expand, new species are discovered, and a long period of peace and prosperity follows. (Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183, pg. 3) Here's my thoughts on the naming:

1) First Council Period - asari and salarian on council
2) First Intermediate Period - disruption of the previous period by the krogan (I have seen this phrase 'Intermediate Period' used in Ancient Egyptian History. It defines a break from one kingdom from another, or in this case, one council from another.)
3) Second Council Period - asari, turian, salarian on council
4) Second Intermediate Period - disruption of the previous period by the humans

I think the approach is conservative, and respects the source material.Throwback 23:22, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject here real quick- Tullis seems to have the substantive issues covered, so may I just add- SpartHawg948. Again S-P-A-R-T-H-A-W-G-948. If you want me to sit back, be quiet, and stay out of your way, at least do me the courtesy of spelling my username right. It's 9 letters and 3 numbers. 12 characters. Not hard to get the order right. Also, welcome back! I notice your "no intention of contributing to the public side of the website anymore in the future" period didn't last very long. SpartHawg948 00:36, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
They don't name the block of time as a period, as in, say, the Late Cretaceous Period. They say that there was a period of prosperity, as in a time of prosperity.
Uhhh... *sigh* If we're going to keep them we'd need to put, in brackets after that period's name, the notable event involved. Remember that the Timeline is a massive page with a contents at the top that need to be descriptive so people aren't forced to comb through it. Someone looking for, say, events around the Krogan Rebellions is going to look at "First Intermediate Period" and go "whuh?" --Tullis 01:00, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

856 - Source Materials Edit

Sources:

from the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183:

1.) 800 CE (1246 GS): Krogan Rebellions end. Turians assume krogan military and policing functions. (pg. 3)
2.) The scale of the war was massive, spanning several planets, and the final rebellion was not suppressed until the galactic year 1300. (pg. 7)

from the Codex: Krogan Rebellions

1.) There were decades of unrest afterwards. Rogue warlords and holdout groups of insurgents refused to surrender, or disappeared into the frontier systems to become pirates.

Math:

from the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183':

A galactic standard year is the equivalent of 1.043 Earth years.

1.) 1300 x 1.043 = 1355.89
2.) 1355.89 rounded to 1356
3.) 1356 – 500 = 856

Proof of concept:

1.) 1246 x 1.043 = 1299.57
2.) 1299.57 rounded to 1300
3.) 1300 - 500 = 800

With this, I created the entry for this year in the timeline. Throwback 02:29, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. That's still stretching the logic like a rubber band. Extrapolation should be reasonable, at least. Besides, what did the turians do? Did they kill the last warlords? Destroy the last krogan base? Finally get the last of the krogan with the genophage? This isn't an entry on the timeline about a notable event, it's basically saying "there were insurgent actions after the Rebellions ended", which can be accomplished by the sentence I added. And there is no clear date for the insurgent actions ending; for all we know they are still going on. --Tullis 02:40, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Our interpretations of the source material differs. {shrug) Throwback 05:13, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
This is not interpretation of the source material. This is highly extended extrapolation of the source material that leads to arbitrary entries. The text you put was not any kind of historical or notable event, which is the entire purpose of the timeline; it was essentially a mention that you had done some homework. While I appreciate your efforts to contribute, if this extrapolation is not at least reasonable or covers an event in more detail (for example, coming up with a more accurate date for an event based on hard evidence) it doesn't belong here and, I'm sorry but we will keep removing it.
As SpartHawg suggested, you may be better suited to contributing to the Mass Effect Fan Fiction Wiki if you want to add material of this kind. Additionally, we do have editors who maintain their own timelines for their personal use, which I see you have already begun. --Tullis 13:39, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Avina - three dates, or why we need a continuity police force Edit

Avina states the following:

1.) The volus were the first non-Council species to be granted an embassy, roughly 2,384 galactic standard years ago.
2.) It [Earth embassy - Ed.] was added nineteen galactic standard years, despite some rather vocal opposition.
3.) Roughly 1,304 galactic standard years ago, turians were invited to join the Council in recogintion of the role they played during the Krogan Rebellion.

On page 2 of the Galactic Codex Essentials: Edition 2183, or GCE:Ed. '83, a galactic standard year is defined as ...the equivalent of a 1.043 Earth years.'.

On page 3, the current galactic standard year (for 2183) is given as 2572. And year 1 of the galactic standard year is given as 500 BCE. (There is no year 0).

Notes:

1.) 2,572 minus 2,384 equals 188. 188 multiplied by 1.043 equals 196.084. 500 minus 196 equals 304. The Volus were granted an embassy in approximately 300 BCE.
2.) 2,572 minus 19 equals 2553. 2553 multiplied by 1.043 equals 2662.779. This is clearly a mistake as the Earth embassy is opened approximately two years later in 2265 (see Timeline). For that year, the galactic standard year is discovered by adding 2165 to 500 than dividing the result by 1.043 which equals 2555.
3.) 2,572 minus 1,304 equals 1268. 1268 multiplied by 1.043 equals 1322.524. 1323 minus 500 equals 823. This conflicts with what is given in the GCE:Ed. '83 where the turians were granted a council seat in 900 CE, or approximately eighty years after the date given by Avina.

Though I think it's possible that the Volus were granted an embassy within 200 years of the Council forming as they were the third species to visit the Citadel, I have elected not to change the date. I am not confident enough to believe that the information provided can be trusted, especially when the two other statements are shown as erroneous. (Do the books offer some insight on this issue?)Throwback 14:20, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mordin's Year of Birth Edit

Is there any Source that confirms the Year 2135 as the Year of Birth for Mordin Solus. Given that the Events of Mass Effect 2 take Place in the Year 2185 would make him 50 Years old, which is very old considering that the average life expectancy of Salarians is around 40 Years.


85.22.11.79 22:33, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


It's from the website, and the average for Salarians is 40 years kinda like how there are humans who are 100, but the average is still like 80.


I left a note on Mordin's talk page as well (with a link, can't be bothered to find it right now) but the "50 years" thing on Mordin's profile on the ME page is apparently translated into human years, not salarian ones. So that Mordin's actually more around 30 years old. - Ancestralmask

Derelict Reaper Edit

I think it should be added that 37 million-years ago "An unknown race disables the Derelict Reaper with a mass accelerator round. The round penetrated the Reaper and eventually impacted with the planet Klendagon, creating the Great Rift Valley there." Confirmed by the Illusive Man after completing the Ghost Ship mission.164.107.237.68 19:55, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:24, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Charon Relay? Edit

When is the Charon Relay actually discovered? On the Timeline-page it is listed at both 2149 and 2156 ... which one is it? --Pa-Ec 16:06, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

See Section Discrepencies. I'm pretty sure it's 2149 because the other items in the timeline make more sense matching that particular variation than the 2156. I'm 99% sure the actual answer is sitting in Revelations but I've been too lazy to pick the book up to check. --forgottenlord 23:45, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Changes Edit

1.)65,000,000 BCE - This event is mentioned by Simon Atwell. I say devastated for there is a probability that birds are themselves dinosaurs.
2.)20,000,000 BCE – A civilization thrived on Etamis for 20 million years before they were bombed. They weren't bombed for 20,000 million years.
3.)500 BCE – The codex states that the Specters were founded after the salarians joined the Citadel Council.
4.)300 BCE – Avina states the Volus were granted an embassy roughly 2384 galactic standard years ago. This is not Earth years.
5.)1600 CE – Hamlet (historical records), play is referenced in both games
6.)1685 CE – Arlos from advertisement
7.)1847 CE – Ulysses (historical records), poem is referenced by Ashley Williams
8.)1945 CE – Hiroshima (historical records), destruction of city by a city-buster is referenced in both games
9.) 1969 CE – Apollo 11 (historical records, Codex)
10.)2145 CE – Facts do not support Massani’s birth year – he served the Alliance before becoming a bounty hunter & founder of the Blue Suns
11.)2165 CE – Moved Harkin’s posting to this year. The codex for C-Sec states, ‘’applications must be sponsored by a Citadel Councilor or the ambassador of an associate Council race.’’ Earth didn’t have associate membership until 2165.
12.)2168 CE – Kaiden states that he was 17, not 18, when he killed the turian mercenary
13.)2170 CE – Bankruptcy of Conatix Industries, from Kaiden
14.)2172 CE – Fornax, from Codex
I don't object to most of those, but we don't need Hamlet or Ulysses. Those are both inconsequential minutiae, and if we were to include everything like that in there, this would be impossibly long. As for Harkin's posting, the fact that there wasn't a human ambassador till 2165 changes nothing. Maybe the ambassador of another race sponsored him? SpartHawg948 00:49, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
Also, since I like to quibble over semantics, you point out that we should say the dinosaurs were "devastated" since "there is a probability that birds are themselves dinosaurs." but at the same time refer to Hiroshima as being "destroyed" when it was, in fact, not destroyed. Devastated, maybe, but the city itself survived. SpartHawg948 01:03, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Some more possibilities:

1066 Battle of Hastings
1260 Battle of Ain Jalut
1415 Battle of Agincourt
1944 Battle of Normandy
1945 Battle of Iwo Jima

Dch2404 18:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Again though, as with Ulysses and Hamlet, other than the fact that they are (briefly) mentioned in the game, they have absolutely no impact or bearing whatsoever on the plot, characters, backstory, or anything. SpartHawg948 23:24, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Should this article be this specific? I understand days of birth and enlisting to whatever organization for primary characters, but do we really need any date that is given including of funding of colonies on non-relevant planets or when a certain craft had been crashed because it appears is part of some assignment? This kind of information only serves to take the focus from the real dates - other dates could be noted in the relevant articles. --silverstrike 03:29, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point. I for one am inclined to agree that this article should focus more on the main characters and events, and that dates that are (at best) only peripherally associated with either should be left off. Of course, since this would be a major change, we'd need to give a fair amount of time for comment and discussion before doing anything, so people, if you have thoughts about this either way, let's hear'em! SpartHawg948 03:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
I see only one issue with waiting - only contributors that frequently visit the recent changes page will ever see this discussion. Shouldn't we implement a tag that alert contributors to discussions like this? Something like "A major overhaul is planned, see talk page"? --silverstrike 04:01, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Not a terrible idea... not nearly as terrible as I am when it comes to making tags! Hoyo!!! :P Seriously though, I suck at that stuff, so if you or somebody else wants to work on one, it'd be appreciated! SpartHawg948 05:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Made a quick draft of the {{Overhaul}} tag. --silverstrike 06:12, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Works for me! SpartHawg948 09:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'll fire the opening salvo of this newly-christened overhaul discussion. I thought it would be easier to illustrate my ideas for an overhaul by just making the changes I believe need making; see my user page for the draft. Essentially, I tried cutting out the "chaff" (random/really unimportant stuff) and prioritized keeping events by the following criteria: events listed in the Codex (main Codex and planet descriptions. An exception was the dates minor colonies were founded/discovered); events learned by and important to Commander Shepard; events concerning major ME characters. It's still a work in-progress and nothing more than my own single-minded attempt to tinker with the page, but I think it's a step in the right direction. -- Commdor (Talk) 06:46, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Before we go too far, I think it's important to mention that there will be more DLCs (possibly, with fingers crossed), a new game, a new book, and maybe much more as the people at Bioware have said that Mass Effect 3 may be not the end. If we do consider widespread changes, I think it's important that we make changes that are planned for these eventualities in mind.Throwback 08:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how any of the changes being discussed wouldn't take into consideration future updates. All that's being discussed is removing some of the dates that really have nothing to do with anything as far as the game is concerned. It's not like, if these changes are implemented, we suddenly won't be able to add new dates. It'll be no different than it was before. If there are relevant dates from DLC, books, and further games, they can get added in. When you get right down to it, this is no more radical a change then the new trivia policy that was implemented a while back. That didn't stop new trivia from being added that related to (then) unreleased media. SpartHawg948 10:17, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
I've pretty much finished my version of the timeline. I think I've taken out any colony founding dates (irrelevant background details), and most other events not explictly mentioned in the Codex entries. I kept out dates like the creation of the universe and extinction of the dinosaurs because they're equally irrelevant in the context of ME (unless we find out the Reapers caused that extinction, that would be interesting). Lean and mean is what I went for. So, again, this is just what I'd do if I were given untethered tyrannical oversight for cleaning up the page. In any case, I generally advocate keeping the timeline free of extraneous events; this is the Mass Effect Wiki after all, not the General History of All Time Wiki. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:41, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Rog-O! I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but I'll take a peek at it later today! SpartHawg948 21:20, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Glad you waited, I made some more tweaks to it. Kind of went beyond making a simple proof-of-concept, but I have a lot of spare time this week. Should be near-perfect now. Even if it isn't used, I may just keep it up on my user page for the heck of it, I had fun. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:02, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I lied... I didn't look at it yesterday. I will look at it tonight though, although it may not be till pretty late. It's Tuesday night, so new Lost is on. And I've got a class and then need to stay to work on a group project for another class, but I will get to it tonight. SpartHawg948 22:44, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Completely understandable, I can't miss an episode of Lost either and I sympathize with your workload; I had three all-nighters last week. Take your time. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, as promised, I looked it over, and let me just say, I like what I see! It's short and sweet and focused on important dates, with little or no extraneous minutiae. Very nice! SpartHawg948 06:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Well all right, thank'ee sir. I have achieved what I set out to accomplish. So, what's the next step? -- Commdor (Talk) 20:26, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping you knew... my gameplan was pretty much taken straight from the Underpants Gnomes. Phase 1) Revamp the timeline. Phase 2) ? Phase 3) Profit (or in this case, new timeline). What we'll probably want to do is provide a link to the prospective timeline (you already did, but maybe once more, clearly labeled as what is being considered) and give it about a week for comment. Then we can go from there. SpartHawg948 04:53, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Something like the following? -- Commdor (Talk) 16:47, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Something like the following indeed! SpartHawg948 21:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

New Timeline ProposalEdit

This timeline is being considered to replace the current version of the article Timeline. Anyone interested is welcome to discuss its implementation here. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:47, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

This actually looks a lot like our old timeline sans all the colony-founding dates--not a bad thing. I would dispute only one or two things, in the most recent section. First: "Eden Prime War" is not a phrase used anywhere in Mass Effect. We should probably switch it for something else or remove it. Secondly, I wouldn't use seasons. We're in space; these events are happening across many worlds, and seasons probably aren't the best way to mark the passing of time. I'd drop them altogether. Apart from that: nice work. :) --Tullis 03:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I think Eden Prime War is actually taken from ME2. I believe it can be found, for example, in the Sovereign codex entry. SpartHawg948 03:59, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that was why I added "Eden Prime War" in. As for the seasons, I'll go ahead and remove those. They were actually in the timeline before I started my trimming. I wasn't sure what the rationale for them was, but on the off chance they were mentioned somewhere I'd missed I kept them in. Since I still don't know where the seasons came from, no reason to keep them in. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:05, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I place the seasons in. This is my rationale.

a.) Summer 2183 - Ashley Williams sends an e-mail on June 17 from her post on Eden Prime. Mass Effect couldn't occur earlier than this date. In the next game, Avina says that Commander Shepard hasn't made an inquiry of the database for 2 years, 3 months, and 17 days. This gives us a timeframe for the events of Mass Effect. They didn't occur any earlier than June 17 and no later than September 30. I settled on a compromise - summer - as this season comprises much of the time span.
1.) Caveat - we have a timeline discontinuity. According to the page for Sol, the alignment of the planets is accurate to January 26, 2185. If we take what Avina says above, this places the events of Mass Effect in 2182 which agrees with the codex Revelations which states that the Eden Prime War occurred that year.
b.) Winter/Spring 2185 - Cerberus Daily News has entries for Valentine's Day and the Super Bowl. Traditionally, these events are in February (Valentine's Day) and January/February (Super Bowl). Additionally, the film Nekiya Corrider is stated to be a summer release which reinforces that the news articles are taking place before the summer.
c.) Fall 2185 - See above - Summer 2183. Additionally, the film Citadel by that film director is stated to be coming out that fall reinforcing the connection.

If you have any questions or wish for direct quotes, I will be happy to assist you.Throwback 22:20, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I'll add the seasons back in if no one opposes it. Since Spring doesn't start until March 20, however, I'll limit the Cerberus Daily News date to Winter for now. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:31, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Response to Throwback's post below: Looking at your list of "keep" entries, I do have everything there in my timeline. A few things missing are the Treaty of Farixen (no info about the date it was drawn up is available), and entries for the first human in space and the first Moon landing. The latter could probably be added in, I just have not done so yet because they are not events mentioned in the Codex entry for human history. As for things you would drop, that's mostly covered as well, but I'll try and explain everything:

  • Extinctions: Prothean extinction kept in for obvious reasons. Arthenn extinction also kept (See Isolated incidents below).
  • Coattails: No disagreements here I can see.
  • X happens to planet: A few exceptions I've kept in: Tuchanka enters the nuclear age (pivotal event in krogan history with ramifications for the galaxy down the line, such as in Rachni Wars. See Isolated incidents below), Rakhana goes industrial (pivotal event in drell history; unimportant on galactic scale, yet important to the history of that race. See Isolated incidents below), and I think the occupation of Shanxi is mentioned during the First Contact War (obvious reasons).
  • Isolated incidents: While they may not important on a galactic scale, some events like the turian Unification Wars and first contact with the drell give us valuable insight into the histories of the other races. The timeline is human-centric enough without discarding those events; if we can put in when humans first shot a guy into space, I don't see why we can't include important events for other races. Some events (discovery of the zeioph necropolis, the war between the thoi'han and inusannon) also serve to illustrate the scale of galactic history, that it isn't confined to just the last 50,000 years. Dozens of other races came before the Protheans, their existences can't be shoved aside. As for the Mu Relay, we don't know when the rachni rediscovered it and I don't see any reason to lengthen the description of the Eden Prime War just to add it in. It can either stand alone or be removed, and I'm leaning toward removing it.
  • Personal information: Can either be kept in or removed completely. I figure if we keep in Shepard's birth and enlistment dates, then it makes sense to keep in events important to other major characters since there's only a handful of entries. I'm in favor of keeping them in. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:22, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I've added in the human space achievements and a few details to keep the Mu Relay entry. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
In response to Throwback, you said in ME2 the Sol system's positions suggest 1/26/2185. But on the Current timeline, it states ME2 occurs in the Fall. I am getting confused how can we be certain? Obviously, it does not all occur in one day, but why does the timeline state different? -- (Lone Hunter 18:15, March 1, 2010 (UTC))
There's a bunch of discrepancies. It's a pain when the guys writing the lore slip up, but what can you do? I'm thinking the positions of Sol's planets should be ignored; they signify nothing except to show where the planets will be 175 years to the day after ME2's original release. Take that out, and everything mentioned by Throwback everything fits. We have Ashley getting a letter on June 17, 2183 on Eden Prime, so we know ME can't occur any earlier. Add 2 years, 3 months, and 17 days (time since Shepard's last visit to Citadel), and you end up with ME2 happening sometime during Autumn 2185. The planetary positions likely aren't supposed to mean that's the actual date in ME2, it seems more like an easter egg. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:28, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
There's an error in the Proposed Timeline, it states:
300 - 700 CE
The krogan begin to expand exponentially, colonizing many new worlds. Growing concerns about their expansion lead to the founding of the Special Tactics and Reconnaissance branch of the Citadel.
Yet, the Spectre page states that the Spectres was founded at some point after the salarians joined, but before the Krogan Rebellions. It does not give a date or year. So this line about the Spectres being created BECAUSE the krogan is expanding is incorrect. We do not know what event or series of events that lead to the Spectre branch being created.
Not at all. The article on Spectres makes it clear that the group was founded because the "Council became uneasy about the unchecked expansion of the krogan into Citadel space". Since that unchecked expansion occurred 300-700 CE, this had to be when the Spectres were founded. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:01, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons Edit

To help this discussion, I am including links to other wikis that were created for video game series.

1.) Fallout series Timeline: [1]
2.) Halo series Timeline: [2]
3.) Call of Duty series Timeline: [3]
4.) Half-Life series: [4]
5.) Resident Evil series: [5]
6.) Elder Scrolls series
a.) Official Timeline - [6]
b.) Unofficial Timeline- [7]
7.) Bioshock series Timeline: [8]
8.) Fear series Timeline: [9]
9.) Killzone series Timeline: [10]

I hope this helps.Throwback 06:39, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's my thougths. In all honesty, I only looked at ones for franchises I am familiar with, meaning only four of them. As for the Fallout timeline, while they have much more material and sources to work with, theirs seems pretty well done, and seems to be what is being discussed above. It's all stuff that has some real bearing on the plot and gameplay, without a lot of irrelevant side information and such. Halopedia's, on the other hand, is a mess. It's not even a timeline, so I'm not really sure why it was included or listed as one above. It's just a category packed full of articles about individual years, most of which have only one or two lines of info. If that were implemented here, I'd likely go on a killing spree, it upsets me so much. And as for the Elder Scrolls series, first off, I wouldn't call the timeline from the Imperial Library "Official", as it's not really any more official than that of the wiki. Now, if it was a timeline on the Bethesda Elder Scrolls website, [11], it'd be official. As is, the Imperial Library one is no more official than the wiki timeline, and as the former isn't even a wiki, I'm not sure why it was included. And their layout isn't feasible for us, as their timeline is divided up into Eras (Dawn, Merethic, First, Second, Third, and Fourth). And those are my thoughts! SpartHawg948 06:59, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Perspective Edit

Who is writing this timeline, and what is our audience?

On Memory Alpha, the editors enforce that all contributors write from the perspective of a Federation archivist writing in the twenty-fifth century for an audience within the Federation and beyond.

Now, on this site, I see three probable perspectives one could embrace in writing the timeline. I believe there are very many other perspectives available.

If I am writing this from the perspective of a para-historian, then I would include those events believed to be connected to the cycle of extinctions and I would be writing for those in believe in those events.

If I am writing this from the perspective of a Citadel historian, then I would include those events directly related to the history of the Citadel and its influence in and out of Citadel Space. I would be writing this history for the general audience and may divide the history into five sections.

If I am writing this from the perspective of a Systems Alliance historian, then I would include those events directly related to the history of man's exploration into space from the very first tentative steps in the 20th century to first contact and beyond. Again, this would be written for a general audience.

Then, once I had selected a perspective, I would then ask myself, how much influence did this event have on the lives of individuals living in the greater community? I am looking at this from the perspective of a human writer.

I would keep:

1.) Major conflicts
a.) Klencory incident
b.) Extinction of the Prothean Empire
c.) Rachni War
d.) Geth War
e.) Eden Prime War
f.) Mass Effect 2
g.) First Contact War
2.) Creation of Major Organizations
a.) Spectres
b.) Systems Alliance
3.) Firsts
a.) Discovery of the Citadel by the asari
b.) Embassy on the Citadel
c.) First human in space
d.) Humans landing on Luna
e.) Humans discover the first extrasolar planet (Bellerophon)
f.) Humans found a colony on Luna (the first in-system colony)
g.) Humans discover the Prothean ruins, then the Mass Relay
h.) Humans found a colony on Demeter (the first out-system colony)
i.) Humans recognize biotics
j.) Humans have embassy on Citadel
k.) Humans successfully implement an AI platform - Eliza
4.) Major Laws
a.) Unified Banking Act
b.) Citadel Conventions
c.) Treaty of Farixen
5.) Miscellaneous
a.) Turians granted a seat on the Council


I would drop:

1.) Extinction of species - In Mass Effect 2, it seems that every cluster has a woeful tale to tale of a civilization being obliterated by mass accelerator rounds from orbit. Unlike the Prothean Empire which had extended into a great many systems, these lost civilizations seem to have never left the confines of their home system and it's hard to see how they are relevant to the galactic history. Though I suppose one could argue that some of these civilizations were destroyed by the Reapers, I think this is speculation. What is certain is that a Reaper ship was disabled by a shot fired by an unknown race and that the Reapers invaded and conquered the Protheans.
2.) Coattails - No one cares who comes in second when it comes to a major event. Most people barely or not all remember that there is an Apollo 12. There are exceptions, of course, if they have an influence on a grander scale. For example, after the krogan defeat, the turians assume the rules of defending and policing Citadel Space. This comes into importance later with the First Contact War.
3.) X happens to planet - Unless that event is the preamble to a larger conflict, then that event is relevant only to that species. For example, the attack on Eden Prime is the first battle in the Eden Prime War; however, krogan annihilating themselves in a nuclear holocaust began and ended on their world. Other notable examples are the founding of colonies (ex. Terra Nova), attacks on colonies (ex. Mindoir), ships crashing on planets (ex. Gernsback on 2175 Aeia), isolated incidents on planets (ex. Akuze), etc..
4.) Isolated incidents - An example of this is the Mu Relay. The timeline states that the relay is moved by a supernova and says no more on this relay. In fact, there is more information on this relay which could be incorporated into the timeline. Re-discovered by the rachni during the Rachni War, this relay plays a pivotal role in the Eden Prime War. Without this information, that entry about the relay becomes a fragment. A timeline is a train of connections. Other notable examples include the League of One and the Unification War.
5.) Personal information - When I consider the probability that the Mass Effect universe is populated by trillions of sapient individuals, then I question why we should place any information on the history of select individuals into the timeline. This information should be placed into each individual's page. Perhaps on that pages I or others could write a timeline showing the relevant points in a person's history?

If you would like, I could write a rough draft of this timeline.Throwback 08:09, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, we already have a rough draft of a prospective new timeline, drafted for us by Commdor. A link to it can be found under the sub-header "New Timeline Proposal", easily found using the ToC. It looks like it contains pretty much everything you had listed under "keep", and I found it refreshingly clear of extraneous minutiae. SpartHawg948 08:20, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Throwback, I've responded to this post above. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:23, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mordin's birthdate is wrong Edit

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/844703


Last post is dev confirmation that Mordin Solus is not fifty. Fifty is a 'human approximation'. We have no exact age for him, and other ages on the ME2 site are confirmed to be 'relative to humans', throwing every alien age listed there into confusion.

That really only calls Mordin's age into question, so I'll remove it for now. Grunt's age discrepancy was made known a while ago. That doesn't mean the ages for the other alien characters are wrong, though. Samara's age (while not included in this timeline) is given as approximately 600 on the site, and I think this is verified in-game through dialogue. If that's right, then Thane's and Tali's ages (the only other ages for alien characters listed on the site) may be right as well. Thane's age of 39 is reasonable given that we know drell live 85 years, and Thane is old enough to have a grown son. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:00, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I have with Samara's age is that she calls herself 'nearly 1000', but the website calls her 600. That's some generous rounding. Her Sapiens Justicar power also implies that she is younger than a matriarch ('Samara's biotic abilities now rival those of an asari Matriarch'), further complicating things, since the 'thousand years old' tag is ususally reserved for them (Benezia, bartender). You could make an argument for either way.

Drell/Hanar Timelines are off Edit

If you look at the codex entry for the drell, it says that the hanar contacted them 800 years ago. In the time line, it shows this happening around 200 years ago.


The codex entry itself seems a bit weird because it mentions the 800 year marker, and then says the drell have been apart of the galactic community for 200 years.


So which is it? Have the hanar and drell been coexisting for hundreds of years before the council races knew of them and then they show up right around 2000CE? Or is the 800 year mark a mistake?Silentstephi 21:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Which Codex entry are you referring to? The only Codex entry on the drell I am familiar with is the Drell: Biology entry, which doesn't mention anything about when the hanar contacted them SpartHawg948 21:45, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it would seem there is a second entry, on drell culture, that is lacking from our Codex. I can't add it atm, as I'm about to step out for the evening, but if needs be I'll get it later. Now that this is cleared up, on to the "meat and potatoes" of the issue.
  • The Codex entry in question says that the drell started down the path of screwing up their planet eight centuries ago, it doesn't say that the hanar contacted them eight centuries ago. And this very same Codex entry says "Drell have been part of the galactic community for almost two centuries." So, as the Codex states that the process that led to their needing to be relocated started approx 800 years ago, and that they've been part of the galactic community for almost 200 years, I think it's safe to say the timeline is correct as is. The "first contact" between drell and hanar 800 yrs ago thing is a misinterpretation of the Codex entry. SpartHawg948 22:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Interregnum?Edit

That isn't the right word... An interregnum is a period of time where a government has no clear or defined leader. SlayerEGO1342 18:17, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have it changed. It'll be one of several updates I have to factor in because of new info from ME: Retribution. Thanks for pointing that out, I had thought "interregnum" was a synonym for "intervening time" or some such. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:26, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
The word you're looking for is interim Commdor. Arbington 18:29, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
No problem. "Interbellum" would work... sort of. It's a time between wars, but with the Geth War and First Contact War/Relay 314 Incident, it's not entirely accurate. SlayerEGO1342 18:30, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Ummm... hate to burst your bubbles, SlayerEGO and Arbington, but interregnum does work in the manner in which Commodor used it. The word has several definitions. One of these is "any pause or interruption in continuity." Hmmm... Should that continuity be war, which seems reasonable, seeing as there is so much of it in the world of ME, any period of peace would be an interregnum. So it seems reasonable to use the word interregnum where it is. It certainly sounds better than interbellum, which isn't a real word. Antebellum is a word. Interbellum? Not so much. And interim doesn't really sound like a good title for a section, but that's just my opinion. SpartHawg948 20:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, my bubble's not really burst... more deflated really. Interim would still work, at least. I had honestly never hear interregnum before, and thus, I used the best word I could think of to take it's place, assuming that whatever it meant, it was used incorrectly. Now I know what interregnum means, and I won't make that mistake again. You learn something every day, eh? Arbington 20:53, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I mean, the most commonly used definition is a period between governments, although not quite the definition SlayerEGO gives above, a period with no authority. It's most commonly used to define a period in which a country is between monarchs, or reigning monarchs. This would make sense, as interregnum literally means 'between kings' in Latin. It does have other meanings though, such as a time between governments, with no clear leader, or a break in continuity or the status quo. I'm trying to draw upon my prodigious vocabulary to come up with something better than either interregnum (which does have some issues regarding its definition) or interim, which is slightly more accurate, but not as fancy sounding, i.e. less suitable for a section title IMO. SO far though, I've got nothing. SpartHawg948 20:59, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I feel mighty stupid for "interbellum." I guess I just used incorrect Latin. My bad. However, a break in continuity (such as a war [ceasefire would then be a direct synonym]) would only be applicable if the same war resumed after the interregnum. SlayerEGO1342 21:02, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
How so? Using that logic, a textbook Interregnum (i.e. a period between two monarchs) could only end if the person who was ruler before it started took over again after, which is usually impossible as most interregnums are kicked off by the death of a monarch. Btw, inter and bellum were used correctly per their Latin definitions, interbellum just isn't a word in modern usage. It may have been used in antiquity (though I can't recall any such instances) but it's definitely not a word in the English language, unlike interregnum and antebellum. SpartHawg948 21:05, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I just checked a Thesaurus, and to be honest, the lackluster sounding "interim" was the best alternative I found that applies to the situation. Arbington 21:11, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Spart, you're mixing definitions. Defined as period between two monarchs, no "continuity" is mentioned. Defined as a break in continuity, "continuity" is mentioned. You proposed war as a break in continuity as per that definition, and in doing so you negated the use of the monarchical definition. SlayerEGO1342 21:14, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
And a state of war (in general, not particular wars) is not applicable? Tell that to an Israeli, or to 19th century Europe. You can have near-continuous states of war that consist of different wars, with brief interregnums in between. SpartHawg948 21:17, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well, sure, if you want to be a pessimist about it. Measuring history in terms of sporadic peace seems kind of... morose. SlayerEGO1342 21:20, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Also, we're not talking about Israel or 19th Century Europe. We're talking about the ME world. SlayerEGO1342 21:22, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Really? We aren't talking about Israel? Then what the hell is this timeline about? Of course I know we aren't talking about Israel. I'm not daft. I just apparently forgot that using examples to prove a point that is in dispute is now verboten. My apologies for having the audacity to illustrate a point. And it isn't pessimistic, it's realistic. Find a period in time in which peace (i.e. no major wars) was the norm even here on Earth. Even restricted to just one continent. The ME universe seems to mirror this pretty well. Major wars all over the place. So basically, even though you called it pessimistic and morose (realistic would be a better way to describe it), interregnum can very well define a period between separate conflicts. A period in which peace is the norm, which historically speaking seems to be a fluke both in ME and real life. SpartHawg948 21:27, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Please don't get snippy with me. I understand your logic and I understood your example. HOWEVER, the Mass Effect universe ISN'T Earth. It's on a galactic scale, not just our war-ridden planet. Your definition does not apply to relatively war-free timeline of Mass Effect. And, given that this timeline is divided into sections categorized by arbitrary frames of YEARS, not WARS, referring to this particular section as a break between a state of war (NOT TO MENTION the fact that the Geth War is included in this very time period) is entirely inaccurate. SlayerEGO1342 21:40, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I only got 'snippy' because for some reason you felt the need to remind me that we aren't talking about Israel or 19th Century Europe. I mean, how much more obvious a statement could there have been? 'Reminding' me of that made it seem like you were questioning my basic intelligence. Like somehow I would forget in the span of a couple of seconds what this was about. Now, on to the main point, it is hardly inaccurate. The way the timeline is divided up mirrors the galactic timeline in the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183, which characterizes this period between the Krogan Rebellions and the First Contact War (Geth War and all) as 'a long period of peace and prosperity'). So if it is, as you say, entirely inaccurate, it's only as entirely inaccurate as the canon source it's taken straight from. SpartHawg948 21:44, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I was reminding you of what this timeline is about because you were providing examples of the definition as it pertains to Earth, which isn't what this timeline is about. Relativity in physics and speech. Just because it's a "long period of peace and prosperity," it doesn't warrant your extrapolated definition of "interregnum." You're only justifying the usage of "interregnum" by assuming that the timeline is measured in terms of "states of war." If that is true, the entire timeline would be measured thusly. SlayerEGO1342 21:54, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
No, I never stated any such thing. I said war was the norm, not that the timeline was entirely dictated by periods of war. This Timeline, however, largely mirrors the official timeline (i.e. the Galactic Codex: Essentials Edition 2183 timeline) which is measured in terms of states of war. I'm not assuming anything, I'm going with how it's handled canonically. Can you say the same? After all, the way this timeline is divided is all extrapolated, with pretty much the sole exception of the 'interregnum' period. If anything is inaccurate, it's that our timeline isn't divided up in terms of states of war. I provided my reasoning and solid, canonical, proof validating the use of interregnum. You, on the other hand, seem to be quibbling over semantics. SpartHawg948 22:06, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
So, since this site's timeline isn't divided up in terms of states of war, thereby not reflecting the canonical appropriateness of "interregnum," my original point of "interregnum" being a word unfit for the page seems to have just been proven by you. SlayerEGO1342 22:12, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
How so? Canonically, the period is still an interregnum. And whether you look at this timeline (organized slightly differently than the official, due to more info being present) or the 'official' timeline, it still fits the textbook definition of an interregnum. So, unless you propose to change the English language, any way you spin it, the title of interregnum works. How this timeline is divided up (states of war or not) does not change canon. You understand this, yes? Regardless of how we organize it, the period, canonically, fits the bill of an interregnum. As such, interregnum is fit for this page. Again, I'm arguing in favor of canon here, while you... well, I'm not sure what you're arguing, or what you have that overrules canon. SpartHawg948 22:43, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
You're right. Interregnum is the perfect word for the section. SlayerEGO1342 22:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Well, as is clear from my comments (and would be obvious if you read them), it obviously isn't perfect. I'd say it's 'least worst', which is why I also mentioned looking for another word that fits better. But canonically, it works, and it works much better than made-up words would. SpartHawg948 22:50, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the reference to the "made-up word." You've already pointed it out, and this second time just seems a bit immature to me, Staff Sergeant. SlayerEGO1342 22:54, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Immature? How? I was commenting on the fact that, to this point, you have proposed no viable alternatives. You can't just say 'this is wrong. fix it'. You need to have some sort of proposal of what it should be changed to. You don't appreciate the reference to a made-up word, I didn't appreciate the insinuation that I was a moron, as only a moron would need to be reminded that we're talking Mass Effect, and not Israel or Europe. The world isn't ideal. Grow up and deal with it. And don't try to guilt me into acting per your definition of mature by using my title, somehow implying I'm not living up to it. You have no idea what goes into that title, or what responsibilities it entails. No civilian, not even those playing at being in the military (which is all ROTC is, pretending) does. A good officer would know that. Sadly, I've yet to meet a ROTC officer who did. Here's a hint- impressing strangers on a video game website with my 'maturity' (or their definition of such) does not factor in to the rank at all. SpartHawg948 23:02, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Immature because it feels like, "to me," that you're rubbing my use of "interbellum" in my face. I didn't insinuate that you were a moron, you inferred that. And as for your defensive attitude about my usage of your title, I meant absolutely nothing by it. I'm not trying to guilt you into anything. I don't appreciate the reference to the "made-up word" simply because I don't like being proven wrong. I pride myself on my vocabulary and was, frankly, embarrassed that I had tried to use a word that doesn't actually exist. Is that egotistical of me? Yeah, it is. That's just who I am. (note: That doesn't relate to my username/gamertag, it's just an ironic coincidence) I have a good idea of what responsibilities being an Air Force Staff Sergeant entails, so now it's you who is calling me a moron, albeit much more maliciously. You dissected my comment and assigned meanings where I placed none. SlayerEGO1342 23:16, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
If you meant nothing by the title, then why use it? It's not like that's something that gets used conversationally around here on a daily (or weekly, or monthly, or yearly, for that matter) basis. So why use it now, hmmm? Again, I mentioned the use of a made-up word because you did not present an alternative (other than a made-up word), which is incredibly frustrating. 'You need to change it.' Ok... to what? And again, unless you have actually been in the service, you have not a clue what the actual duties and responsibilities of a Staff Sergeant in the USAF are. It's nothing like what they tell you in JROTC. That's one of the problems with ROTC officers. Most come to the service with these preconceived notions of what is and what isn't that are so far off base it isn't even funny. JROTC teaches you as much about the real military as does the Boy Scouts. Finally, at no point did I call you a moron, maliciously or otherwise, and I resent the fact that you would attempt to sully my name by claiming I did. Please either demonstrate where I did so, or retract the statement. SpartHawg948 23:24, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I used your title simply because I'm ex-JROTC. It's not used on this site conversationally because, I'm willing to bet, no other contributor has a military background, however "far off base" mine is. For the past three years, usage of rank on a daily basis was the norm for me. I'll retract my statement to a point: You saying "No civilian, not even those playing at being in the military (which is all ROTC is, pretending) does. A good officer would know that. Sadly, I've yet to meet a ROTC officer who did." insinuates that I'm a moron in the same way that my reminding you of the timeline's topic insinuates that you are a moron. If you feel that you did not insinuate this, then I ask you to please retract your statements that I insinuated that you're a moron, as I, too, resent the fact that you would attempt to sully my name by claiming I did. Lastly, I understand gripes with ROTC and JROTC, but please don't slander their names like you did on your talk page. It's pretty insulting. SlayerEGO1342 23:36, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Correction: Not your talk page; your user page. SlayerEGO1342 23:39, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
So, my saying that you don't understand something that you really need to have first-hand experience of in order to understand... is calling you (or insinuating that you are) a moron? In what universe? I simply stated that, as you have no experience, you can't be expected to know it. And actually, there are several other military members or vets on this wiki. As in, actual military, not any quasi-military ROTC program. I can't retract my statements about thinking you insinuated I'm a moron because I'm not going to retract feelings that I still have. I asked you to retract a blatantly libelous comment, i.e. that I called you a moron. Not that you felt like I called you a moron ("so now it's you who is calling me a moron, albeit much more maliciously."). Not a feeling or impression. And not once did I slander ROTC or JROTC. They are not military organizations. They are quasi-military. This is obvious. For example, General Ryan once bragged that nearly 50% of JROTC went on to actually join the military. They are not military. My saying so is not slander. Nor is stating opinion based on personal experience, such as stating that the only good officers (generally speaking) are prior enlisted. Again, they actually know what it's like on the other side, and what their orders mean to enlisted people. Not slander at all. SpartHawg948 23:47, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to jump in here and help try to end this conflict, ere something horrible happens. Slayer, I gather you are/were in the ROTC. Thus, you are obviously a fan of the military, and should understand the importance of listening to your superiors! You may not agree with SpartHawg, but he's an admin, and you're not. He gets the final say in just about every discussion on this wiki, and essentially he's in charge. You should stop arguing with him. In turn, though I do side with Sparthawg in this discussion, I feel it only right to note that I can see why some of his comments could seem a little... snippy. This whole arguement is getting a little out of hand, and no longer serves any real constructive purpose. Arbington 23:51, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
You shut your face, Arbington! I'll show you snippy! Oh, wait... what? :P Seriously though, seems like a good idea to me. SpartHawg948 23:54, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
I get the sense that my name on this site is becoming (if it hasn't already become) a harbinger of arguments and now has a negative attitude associated with it. I'll try to avoid something like this in the future, as this is now the third discussion-turned-argument by me... Sorry guys :( SlayerEGO1342 00:00, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Huzzah! Another dispute successfully arbitrated by Arbington. Soon we'll have to start calling him 'Arbington the Arbitrator' or perhaps 'Arbiter Arbington'. That last one is pretty catchy. Now back to writing a paper on a topic I hate... SpartHawg948 00:04, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Why thank you SpartHawg! And Slayer, I have yet to see you in a negative light, and I doubt that everyone else has. You let a few discussions get out of hand, sure, but that doesn't mean that no one will accept your edits or anything like that. Forgive and forget, I always say. Maintain a level head from here on out, and I think you'll do fine. Arbington 00:17, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, handshakes all around. So do I use "Interregnum" or not? I don't mind changing it, it's just that I haven't come up with any that sounds better. Gems like "Progression", "Interim Period", "Interim Times", and "Intermediate Times" are the best I can do. I gave up when I caught myself seriously considering the merits of words like "Intermission", "Lacuna", and "Caesura". -- Commdor (Talk) 02:42, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to "The Happy Days," myself. SlayerEGO1342 02:59, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm mulling "Peace and Expansion". It makes sense from a galactic perspective, that whole Geth War thing only hit the quarians; given the premise that there are reportedly "dozens" of intelligent races out there, one race getting driven to near-extinction isn't that big a blip. Hmmm, I like it now. I'll probably use it. Everyone's got until tomorrow when I do the update to think of something better. :) -- Commdor (Talk) 03:09, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
We could make something up, like 'Pax Galactica' (sort of like 'Pax Romana') or the Golden Age or something. Though Peace and Expansion works well enough. SpartHawg948 03:19, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.