Forum:Setting dates/times

There's been numerous disagreements on this issue over the past few years (in-real-life measurement, that is), so I think we need to resolve that. Otherwise we'll have one article saying so-and-so event took place in 2501, and another in 2505, etc. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 23:45, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Well, can't see there being enough ambiguity for a four year discrepancy, but I see your point. --Hawki 23:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Remember when we couldn't tell when the Battle of Artika took place? That had to be 2502 at the latest (although it could have been earlier), and we were assuming 2505. Same thing for the timing of War-Torn (frankly your timing made more sense, but when Blizzard gives a timestamp, we really should follow it). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:08, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, as per this discussion, since the current issues are Homecoming and the DTS, I personally believe Homecoming occurs in 2503/'04, but due to the level of ambiguity, I'm content to leave out references to absolute dates concerning it. However, this raises issues for Raynor's and Lockwell's articles as to what order we place events in, even without absolute dates. --Hawki 23:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

That does happen sometimes, right? We don't really know when Resurrection IV took place for instance (so we should probably take it out of the 2501 article), but we can be reasonably sure it took place before the StarCraft comic.

Resurrection IV is a bit hazy but I feel that there's very strong evidence for it to be in 2501, as:

-Raynor asks Artanis if Zeratul will be aiding them, despite the end of BW stating that Zeratul and Raynor go their seperate ways. If RIV occurred after this, why would Raynor ask? It seems to suggest that it took place during the epilogue so to speak or very soon after the end of BW.

-Raynor still has his old appearance. While this is obviously due to game mechanics, it's mentioned in DTS how by Episode IV the transition was being made with him having more hair, so there's a clear in-universe precedent. As such, it seems fair to say that RIV occurs close to this point in time and far enough away from the comic for Raynor to make a full change in appearance over time.

-RIV ends the 'Stukov storyline' which begins with Mercenaries II, with the original Mercenaries coming first. In it, the Dominion was recovering from BW to an extent that it had to use mercenaries, yet by Why We Fight, has seemingly recovered. While this is far from conclusive, it does suggest that the saga at least begins very close to the end of BW.--Hawki 00:21, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Of course, in the case of Lockwell's article, we can't be sure, since it theoretically took place before Newsworthy. But I doubt it. The Mar Sara article on the starcraft2.com site clearly said the KMC is in charge, leading me to believe the Dominion takeover is a really recent event. (And I still think Homecoming took place right before Wings of Liberty.) But it's not good enough to assign a numerical date; there's no clarity or timestamp available.

In Raynor's article, I don't think we know what Raynor was doing between 2503 and 05 anyway, so there's nothing that needs to be changed there. And when it comes to Mar Sara, we know that Thundergod took place when the KMC was still in charge, so the only change that might need to take place is which case first, StarCraft: Ghost's intro video or the Dominion takeover? (They could even have happened at the same time!) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:08, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point about the site, though we have to ask what's out of date, as some units at least are clearly out of place such as the twilight archon and Nomad. As for Ghost, we have to wonder whether the intro video is truely canon, given the zerg's en masse invasion in WoL as opposed to an isolated refinery. Still, if I had to choose, I'd put it even closer to WoL than Homecoming as it shows how Kerrigan's getting more audacious-first Dead Man's Rock, then Mar Sara, then en masse as opposed to battles on isolated worlds such as Artika.--Hawki 00:21, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

As for the DTS, we're balancing vague comments by Metzen with practically everything in the book. And as he admitted the timeframe could be a few months and that Golden distinctly said that it takes place four years before, I'd say keep it at 2505. Either way, we should settle on a definitive date for the DTS for unlike Homecoming, its chronology and relevance to the overall storyline is too great to ignore.--Hawki 23:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

When we write other types of articles, we need a reference for the information. I don't see why specific dates should follow a different policy than the usual canon policy. We're not supposed to put up information that is either inaccurate or unknown. That's different than the exact order we put things in an article. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:57, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

True, and I don't see why not either, though like anything, common sense must be used as well. The canon policy is useful for deciding content based on nebulous information but if some of that info is clearly wrong, even from a higher source, I don't think it should be included in an in-universe context. Still, we're allowed to put stuff from Ghost and the Beta up to varying degress, so in the end, it's down to common sense as well.

Anyway, when it comes to the dates, I actually agree with you now based on Homecoming given the website comments and that the year comments are mentioned in a discrepancies section of the article, provided that absolute dates are used at all.--Hawki 02:03, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Minor note-reverted edits on Lockwell, removed 2503 date and placed it in 2505 article-theoretical in that feel free to remove it, but if not, that's where it should fit in chronologically.

Have to buzz off soon, but just want to mention Orientation, in that it seems to occur in 2501 quite definitively given the SCV design, the characters' appearances, Colin's training and the Umoja-Dominion relationship. Don't have time to implement it right now, but if you feel otherwise, may as well raise an objection here.--Hawki 02:21, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree Homecoming took place in 2505, but it's a bit nebulous right now; maybe we shouldn't put it in the 2505 article. (And same with Orientation.) Also, how do we know which year the SCV design changed? (And, for that matter, why assume they all changed everywhere all at once?) That's the kind of "wobbliness" I'm worried about. I think the time/date articles should be subject to the same standards as other articles.

Which would mean we couldn't put Orientation in the 2501 article. (And the Umoja/Dominion relationship is just really confusing. It's almost like it got retconned between I, Mengsk and War-Torn, which is a pretty fast turnover.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 02:30, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

There's a degree of ambiguity as to the relationship between Umoja and the Dominion in War-Torn, but it's still a bit different from that in I, Mengsk-Jorgensen doesn't give an indication of having anyone else working with him apart from Phash while Ailin Pasteur's aggravation was more or less indicative of Umoja as a whole. And by the time of Orientation, it's clear that Umoja is more or less an enemy of the Dominion given the blockade. Overall, there seems to be a steady decline of relations that puts Orientation after I, Mengsk. And as it's unlikely that any time would be wasted inducting Colin, 2501 seems a very reasonable date.--Hawki 12:03, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

While that's likely true, it's still speculation. That was my problem with the haphazard way we have of putting dates on things. We don't know, and so stating that is against the canon policy. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 13:19, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Since we're not going to agree I may as well leave it but will point out that the point of canon is to deal with discrepancies rather than dictating what we post-which is pretty much anything provided that it's sourced correctly and treated correctly. In this case we have the source (Orientation) and the constraining factors of time I, Mengsk and the timeframe of Ghost Academy. 2501/'02 are the only possible years.

I guess you have a point in holding back as the latter option is still possible, however unlikely. Still, there's enough evidence IMO to edit based on inference as opposed to hypothesis-we either make an educated guess based on the inference or one on a hypothesis that somehow it took the Ghost Program months to get Colin to the the Ghost Academy and/or rebuild it from whatever damage the UED may have done. Which, unlike everything else, there's no source for. Speculation works both ways.--Hawki 20:35, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Artika
If you don't mind me asking, why is 2502 the latest that the battle of Artika could have taken place? --Thebrowncloud 20:53, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Do No Harm featured Dr. Burgess (a minor character in Why We Fight, specializing in neural resocialization) and Do No Harm took place in 2503. Burgess had been working on the Gestalt Project in Do No Harm for over a year (until mid-2503). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 23:47, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing insufficient
Given the few recent "out of the blue" timeline edits by 72.83.146.244, a more robust method of justifying the dates is required. Just using the "refs" doesn't show clearly where some of these dates are coming from.

I propose on "year" pages that each point be followed by an explanation. For example:
 * Random Guy dies.
 * In a-novel-nobody-read chapter c1 Random Guy was n years old and born x years after Pointless War ended. In another-novel-nobody-read chapter c2, Pointless War ended in year .

- Meco (talk, contribs) 19:27, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're getting from but can't agree with it-if we start having x=y in sourcing, than we may as well do it for everything on the site, resulting in any standardized referencing breaking down.

And I'm guessing you've never been to sclegacy in regards to the "nobody read" comments.--Hawki 19:39, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned with people who are already familiar with the lore. I'm concerned with those who are not, and who may ask: "where does this come from?" If putting the explanations in the content article isn't good, then move it into a " /logic" subpage, and put a link in the article to it for those interested (and for our own records.) - Meco (talk, contribs) 19:48, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

That's generally what the talk pages are for. I can appreciate your idea, but still think it's a bit overkill because usually the timeframes are so small and based on simple math that usually a source would suffice (e.g. character ages in the original manual-2499-age=DOB). It's pretty obvious where they're coming from. I don't think we need a "logic" page to explain such simple sourcing. We state on the timeline page that it's based on relative dating for the most part which provides a guideline. Quite a few other wikis do this, stating a modus operandi when a certain dating system/date becomes the norm, apply dates accordingly and let issues be discussed when they arise rather than planning for them wholesale.--Hawki 19:59, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Visitors to wikis don't usually check talk pages. Those are generally used for discussions on how to improve articles (and I find that times are rarely discussed in said talk page anyway). Furthermore, once a time is "set" it tends to be distributed fairly widely, and beyond the original page it doesn't get discussed, so if someone is reading about when Why We Fight took place (in the talk page of Why We Fight), someone reading the page on the Battle of Artika won't be seeing that. This causes problems when a time comes up wrong, since now we have to argue over what time is right and then track down all the erroneous data and correct it.

This is, well, a different wiki from other wikis. Each wiki can create their own policies.

I think it's time for a timeline policy. Explanations can be given in detail on the year page, since that tends to be linked all over the place. (For instance, if someone wants to know why we think the Guild Wars started in 2485, the Guild Wars page (or talk page) probably isn't appropriate to discuss that, but someone could follow the link to 2485 and read the discussion there.) 2485 would presumably be linked to all relevant pages. I think that would be easier than trying to discuss things on all talk pages that are connected in some way to the Guild Wars page. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 23:55, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can expand our timeline policy, but still, I think it's better to keep it on the timeline and/or canon pages rather than little tidbits on every page that's gained through relative dating. We don't have to follow other wikis example but from experience, a few are based on simple policies, where absolute dates are rarely given. Harry Potter for instance takes its timeline entirely from a comment in the second book which places it in 1992. This is stated on the timeline page and applied to all the other years. Star Wars likewise has had a few dating systems that have led to canon discrepencies but it's stated (I think) how the dating system used by Wookiepedia is based on the events of Episode IV, with relative BBY and ABY years. Applying the same policy on every single page would be a nightmare.

So yeah, maybe we can expand our timeline policy on its page-explain how a few absolute dates are given but explain that there's also a fair ammount of relative dating. Maybe we can use the Guild Wars as an example (work down from Rebel Yell and/or work up from I, Mengsk.) However, having snippits of policy on every page personally seems like overkill and in a sense insults a reader's intelligence.--Hawki 00:11, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying put an explanation on every page, just on year pages. It isn't necessary to explain on the Guild Wars page (or I, Mengsk page, or Battle of Noranda Glacier page, etc) how we got the year 2485. That only needs to be explained, via an expanded policy, on the 2485 page itself. Putting those notations on the non-year pages would be overkill.

We can add a notation to each year page (make it a short template on the top) that most dates are found through "relativity". PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:15, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. Certainly some pages would be exempt (e.g. 2229 and 2231) but a simple blurb stating that "note: some/many of these dates are relative and may shift" or something similar would be easy to carry out and let any questions be sorted out accordingly. Such an approach is fine by me.--Hawki 00:19, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Experiment 2491 Progressing...
I tried an experiment for the year 2491. The TimeTrack template doesn't seem to work well (it just "squishes" against the timeline template), and the explanation for how we got the date seems like it could use its own boxed template. I'm guessing if we made the TimeTrack template more flexible (instead of the canned text) and found a way to avoid the squishing we could keep using it.

Please note; the timeline derivation information could be used multiple times on a single page. (2491 only has one source, but a year like 2501 or 2505 probably has multiple sources.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:04, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, the whole concept seems like more trouble than it's worth. Taking the '91 page as an example-it's simply reiterating what's essentially already sourced. I, Mengsk provides us with the dates via Valerian's aging and is thus sourced directly from the book. The whole notes thing is not only messy but is simply being messy and implying that a reader is incapable of understanding the sourcing, the type of thing where someone writing an essay using a book as a source includes which level, shelf and section of the library (s)he got it from (this actually happened once, much to our amusement in a lecture).

And considering that I think the whole date switching was vandalism rather than constructive editing, we may have overreacted.--Hawki 00:41, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

If the notes things takes up too much space, it can be moved into the reference section. (That was one idea I had.) In effect, replace the citation with something a bit more detailed, sort of like how quotes from missions are sometimes used as references. But for a date like 2491, where's there's just one source, the tested method might still work well.

As for "unable to understand the source", that's not very helpful if the reader doesn't actually have the source. (Which was central to Meco's concern in the first place; we can assume readers have played StarCraft and Brood War, but we shouldn't assume they've absorbed every little detail from the books.)

Also sometimes a date was derived from collating multiple sources. For instance, we can get 2501 as a date for the latter part of the Brood War from:

1) The six month duration of Episode I, which we learned from StarCraft: Ghost: Nova (and not the game), which let us know when Episode I ended.

2) Information from early in Queen of Blades, letting us know approximately how much time took place between the Fall of Tarsonis and the establishment of the Terran Dominion. (I believe Nova helped confirm this time period as well.)

3) Information from I, Mengsk, where we learn the Confederate Resistance Forces attacked Arcturus Mengsk on the sixth-month anniversary of the foundation of the Dominion, and that date had to be in early 2501.

3a) And that's further refined by comparing what Duran was doing with what happened in the first two missions of Brood War Episode V.

That's got to be confusing for some readers. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:04, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is an "overreaction" to one incident; that's just what got Meco involved in this forum thread. Timeline issues have been problematic here for a long time. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 00:52, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Well if there's going to be notes I think they should go in a "Notes" section as opposed to being merged with the references. But regardless, even if there's one reference, that should be enough. Some information is reiterated in different pieces of fiction, other pieces of information only appear in a single source. That still doesn't stop us from building information around it.

No, we shouldn't assume that everyone's read the books. We shouldn't assume everyone's played the games either. We can't account for differences in what people know so that's what a wiki is for-to remind them. If they come across info that states "event x happened in year y as sourced by z" --Hawki 01:26, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Such sources are quite rare, however. It's actually almost central to the argument. I, Mengsk does not directly state that "Brood War happened in year 2501 as sourced by I, Mengsk". It only mentions a year once (2478). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:47, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

they can either accept it as referenced valid information or, if they are inclined to question the information, use the talk page, either out of curiosity or, if they possess the same source, argue a different point of view. To have notes in different formats (the quotes, while useful, at least apply to a standard while such notes for 2491 would be a pile of addition and subtraction) is only going to make people less inclined to accept facts. --Hawki 01:26, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

See, I don't accept that. I think people should see us "doing the work".

To top it off and one of my key concerns is that in a sense, we're setting double standards. Yes, we could have inconsistant referencing, going for sprawling lines of text in citations for the timeline, yet not for anywhere else, where the information we write is gathered through implication rather than outright facts (e.g. the Wraith can't go through warp space-I don't think it's outright stated but as it is stated that the system runner is the only ship that can, logic dictates that Wraiths can't) or we apply the same standard to the entire wiki and watch it dissolve into chaos. --Hawki 01:26, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Wraiths cannot enter FTL is breaking the wiki's policies. I haven't looked at the lore section of that page recently, so I don't know how that happened, but we're supposed to follow those standards. I don't see how following standards would cause chaos; the standards are there to prevent it. (For instance, it's there to keep conflicting sources from getting too confusing, and keep excessive speculation, like the huge speculation section I had written in the Samir Duran article, out of the wiki.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:47, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

To go out of our way to explain what is clearly stated and/or implied just for the timeline seems overkill at best and setting hazerdous precedents at worst. And if there isn't outright statements or strong implication for timeframes, then we don't put them in. --Hawki 01:26, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to go out of our way if a date is clearly stated. For instance, the Battle of Hudderstown Colony took place on August 13, 2502; that's really easy to figure out from the comic (since it's directly stated there). Saying the "Battle of Scion" took place in 2500 is really easy if we already know Episode III takes place in 2500. However, if coming up with a date is complicated, I think it should be explained. That'll also prevent us from, well, making mistakes like Why We Fight. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:47, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

(That's probably a bit rich in my case such as the Frontline timeframes. I'll admit to that mistake while I believe other removed timeframes such as the ending of Nova being in 2505 have enough evidence to be placed. However, the '91 article definetly lacks such ambiguity.)--Hawki 01:26, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the '91 date is ambiguous (it came from one line in one source; there's no way it could have taken place the year before, for instance) but, given the confusion about when those events occurred before I, Mengsk came out, it's worth adding an explanatory sentence or two, especially since the year 2491 was not actually stated in I, Mengsk. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:47, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Extra Note (as per edit conflict)

In regards to the six month period...yes, it's confusing in a sense, but far more confusing for those working it out. I think things would get more confusing if there was a whole sprawl of text explaining how it was worked out. And in a sense, it's facts following another. We have the fact from Nova about when Tarsonis was invaded. We therefore apply the other facts from Liberty's Crusade (ten day travel time) to the fact that a psi emitter was used on Antiga to lure the zerg in and the SOK blasting off afterwards (plus a short stop on Atticus Minor). We then apply the fact that awhile passed between the Confederacy's fall and the Dominion's founding, as per Queen of Blades (enough time to get to the Dylarian Shipyards-I think Nova also backs this up. We then apply the fact that it was six months between the Dominion's founding and the Umojan raid. This isn't so much as mumbo jumbo as succinct facts being presented in succession and the information merging together.--Hawki 01:26, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

The information that Episode I took six months can easily just have a reference to SC:G:N. No extra detail is required; it's just one source. However, adding up to Episode V starting in 2501 requires two or three separate sources. It doesn't need to be a long sprawl; that could be explained in three sentences in a notes section. But I don't see that clarity hurting, and putting it in a notes section makes it more visible to wiki visitors than putting it in the talk page. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:47, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not a long sprawl that at least makes things clearer. Three sentences would be good at the end of the 2501 page, such as "Note: the dates here are largely relative and have been gathered from numerous sources (possibly listing them, but that might be cutting into the references). I will admit that the 2500-'01 period is perhaps the most hazy. And indeed, notes have been put in other timeline entries before, as circumstances dictate (e.g. Age of Creation being based on conjuncture and the start of the UED calendar which is likely a cinematic error). However, I still believe that such notes should be the exception rather than the rule and entries such as 2491 which are derived directly from I, Mengsk don't warrant them.--Hawki 01:55, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

How Other Wikis Handle This
I was just randomly visiting the Terminator wiki and noticed their 2004 page. They referenced each time point quickly and simply. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 01:48, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like does work. We just need to add as well for the notes to show up. The 2501 experiment should work now. - Meco (talk, contribs) 01:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Program Overhaul
"According to the novel's timeline, Arcturus Mengsk carried out an "overhaul" of the Ghost Program in 2500. According to StarCraft: The Dark Templar Saga: Shadow Hunters however, this occurred much later (c. 2504)."

This might not be a conflict. I haven't seen what it said in the timeline yet, but in Ghost Academy, the Ghost Program did undergo an overhaul (eg teams, being made nicer looking, etc). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:13, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline is posted here. As it says, it mentions the 50% extermination, the same one that Starke barely survived. The timeline has it much earlier than the timeframe mentioned in SH.--Hawki 01:26, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I know they got Heaven's Devils early. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 01:48, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, got some good news. Apparently Med is going to forward the issues to Metzen and Pocket Books. I guess until then it would be prudent to keep timeline edits/references to a minimum, and hope the end result is something that doesn't require a overhaul en masse. 0_0--Hawki 02:11, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Where did he say that? (Just because he says that doesn't mean Chris Metzen will agree with him.) I don't mind a big overhaul. It'd be a bunch of work if the Brood War ends in 2500 and we have to change 2505 to 2504 all over the place. (Doubly irritating if we don't make the change and then Wings of Liberty starts in December 2504.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:58, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Heaven's Devils Timeline Overhaul Issues
I think the posts have been taken down due to my tone, but on Blizzplanet, we exchanged some info and he mentioned he'd send the queeries to Metzen. We've also exchanged a few emails and I directed him to a forum post I made on SClegacy.

For the record, I would mind a big overhaul and not just for the work. Unlike the Uprising issue we had with I, Mengsk, having to set dates back a few years, this pretty much covers every date link out there. And that it's directly contradicted by the double six months figures from Nova and I, Mengsk, not to mention the other relative dating and cinematic dates doesn't make me a happy bunny. :(--Hawki 13:02, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

There have been direct contradictions before. (Yeah, these are huge, but this isn't new in StarCraft lore. It could be worse. It could be like trying to figure out how old Grom Hellscream is!)

It's my personal belief (and I hope Medievaldragon can figure this out fast) that the timing from previous works were based on guidelines given to StarCraft novel authors rather than anything else. Graham McNeill alluded to this in an interview with Legacy.

"GM: Honestly, there wasn’t any point during the research or writing that I thought, “Damn, I wish that wasn’t the case…” I liked the characters and it was fun to develop the character of Angus, since there wasn’t much written about him. Working out the chronology was a pain at times, as some of the dates I found on the net for certain events conflicted with one another, and trying to figure out things like why Arcturus would join the Marines given his father’s vehement anti-Confederate stance involved some clever thinking, which all worked to the betterment of the novel." Source: http://sclegacy.com/interviews/11-authors/343-scl-interviews-graham-mcneill

I submit that as (weak) evidence the authors aren't directly told timeline information by Blizzard.

By contrast, there's a pretty good chance the timeline in Heaven's Devils (separate from the story) was directly written by Blizzard. Sure this means retcons (such as StarCraft: Ghost only being three years after the Brood War) but retcons between games are to be expected. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 13:37, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the evidence bit, but going by that, Blizzard wouldn't share info with Pocketbooks as well (which still seems to be the author behind the timeline). If it was the official version, why wasn't it posted on the StarCraft II site in the same manner as Blizzard's Diablo and Warcraft timelines? Also keep in mind that Warcraft timelines popped up in various RPG books similar to HD, some elements of which were incorrect, others not. History seems to be against an 'official' timeline popping up all of a sudden in this form.--Hawki 20:04, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that only written material is referenced, even when the material doesn't correspond to dates of birth (e.g. the birth dates of Tassadar and Zeratul are only given through the original manual, yet novels are referenced. If the timeline was by Blizzard, wouldn't they reference their own products at some point? It seems like Pocketbook promotion based on the type of references and at times, their inappropriate use. The absence of any mention of Wings of Liberty seems to back this up.--Hawki 21:10, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you assume Pocket Books wrote the timeline? They're not the experts, and probably shouldn't be writing stuff about Tokyopop products either. I don't think this is a Pocket Book promotion either, since instead of posting a link to a Pocket Book page, Medievaldragon posted a link to a wiki that he contributes to. (In other words, it's an Inc.Gamers promotion.)

Blizzard may very well put up a timeline online. I suspect they haven't done so because:

1) That could cost sales of Heaven's Devils before StarCraft II comes out.

2) I'd be amazed if the manual for StarCraft II doesn't have a timeline.

3) Blizzard can learn from mistakes (like the RPG timelines), especially since the Warcraft/WoW RPG stuff was written at more arms length than more current products.

4) They didn't have a timeline until recently. Resurrection IV came out in 2002, after several novels (about the same time as Speed of Darkness).

Metzen -


 * Taldarin is indeed canon. He is one of the greatest warriors of the Protoss. He fought alongside the mighty Adun. Wounded in battle, his body was kept in stasis until the dragoon exoskeleton was created. He was one of the first Protoss to become a dragoon. That said, we have begun to nail down the StarCraft timeline since this map was made, so disregard Taldarin's assertion that he fought alongside Adun three millennia before the events of the Resurrection map. Also, Taldarin's body didn't stay in stasis for several thousand years. Both time periods were significantly shorter than that. We'd rather not get more specific right now lest it interfere with the development of StarCraft II, but rest assured that having a fully fleshed out timeline is definitely our goal. <:

Blizzard doesn't need to "reference" the birth dates of Tassadar or Zeratul the way we need to, since whatever they say is canon anyway. They can just say "Zeratul was born 1865" and we take it, the same way they said "Arcturus Mengsk: 38 years old" in their other product (the original manual). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Considering the timeline points:

1) The HD timeline has never been mentioned in any official product, only on sites like Blizzplanet. Besides, they were perfectly happy with providing info on Tychus and Raynor on the website pertinant to HD, so Blizzard doesn't seem to be worried about releasing certain info.--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

They didn't provide a whole lot of information there, actually. They were effectively putting up a preview for Heaven's Devils. Note how, for Matt Horner's biography, they avoided material from Queen of Blades? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

The lack of QoB knowledge didn't surprise me. To be fair, in regards to the actual events in the book, Horner spent most of the time working on the Hyperion.

2) I wouldn't be surprised if it did. However, while a manual is indisputably written by Blizzard, the HD timeline is still up to debate. --Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

It could very well be. It'll take having the actual book to judge for ourselves, plus any applicable Blizzard statements which have yet to be made. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the timeline, HD doesn't really provide an issue in itself-the only possible contradiction in Raynor and Tychus parting ways, which contradicts the timeframe given at BlizzCon, not seeing each other for 14 years. Apart from that, HD alone is fine.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

3) If they learnt from mistakes, then why are there such large discrepancies here? There was always a level of ambiguity regarding certain BW and GW timeframes, but the HD one has only made the situation worse. --Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Learning from mistakes could also include writing sensible retcons. (Not that the retcons are necessarily sensible, but information from recent products, such as the timing of the events of Weapon of War, only make sense within the context of the new timeline.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really have an issue with WoW. Jorgensen's espionage is still a far cry from Pasteur's hostility to Mengsk and the blockade situation seen in Orientation.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

That kind of economic blockade (causing starvation) seems pretty vicious to me. The kind of blockades done in real life (eg to Iran, formerly to Iraq) are actually quite harmful. (The politics of whether they actually work is another story.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 02:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

4) As Metzen says, they were "firming up the timeline." And over the years, we've seen elements of that, such as the six months figure in Nova, more absolute dates (e.g. the June, 2500 figure in the comic, which correlates with the last days of the Confederacy perfectly). --Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

On this I agree, with a caveat to be included below... PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

There was never a precedent for this in the novels, but it helped extend the timeline so that a) the conflict took place over what could be argued to be a realistic period...

But was it that realistic? Why were the Sons of Korhal stuck on Antiga Prime for six months? (Not that this is great evidence, but Episode I didn't feel that way from the game.) From what we've seen of Queen of Blades, Episode II and part of III only took (IIRC) a few months. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind the SOK seem to have been spread out, carrying out objectives simultaniously. They gassed Haji while in the Sara System, they blew up the plant at Palombo Valley while on Antiga and may have been on Atticus Minor prior to Mengsk arriving. The main body was on Antiga, using it as a base of operations (which, as the Confederacy had lost control, made it a relatively good site) and using broadcasts to stir up revolt elsewhere.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

and b) allows one to get to the absolute dates provided in Ep. V. If anything, HD's timeline seems to be in defiance to firming up the timeline. It stands in stark contrast to every little piece of timeline detail we've seen. So, by definition, how does "firming up" equate to a 180?--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Blizzard could have retconned Episode V's dates. IIRC, they only provided one or two dates.

HD's timeline doesn't contradict some of the more recent work: Weapon of War, War-Torn, Orientation and Ghost Academy #1 come to mind. It does contradict other work though (Nova and Heavy Armor; there's no way the six year figure stated in Heavy Armor makes sense now). I don't know why Blizzard went this route, but they did, and we have to fall in line. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

And if one goes by the "most recent" argument, then surely SCII comes as even more recent via timing of release, which starkly contradicts the KMC figure.--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the KMC figure you're using here. Do you mean the one from the beta stuff from Legacy, or the info about the KMC from I, Mengsk, or something else? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's the one from the beta images at Legacy.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

That should probably reference the image rather than the page. (There's too many images there, and I'm leery of "spoilers". Apparently people have even extracted xel'naga images from the beta.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 02:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

So, either Blizzard was working on two timelines at once--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "at once". But I find it suspicious that a recent product like I, Mengsk had an author not getting a firm timeline from Blizzard. (Not that this surprises me; a lot of Warcraft novels made the exact kind of mistake.) Seems to me Blizzard made this decision really recently. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

[Blizzard] decided to reverse previous firming up--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as "unfirming up" the timeline, but retcons. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

or, as I consider to be the most likely, the timeline isn't official--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

This is the greatest source of timestamps we've ever gotten in a Blizzard product, and at least some of them fit in with older lore. I'd be amazed if it doesn't fit the Wings of Liberty manual timeline. (Incidentally, I'm betting that's already written up.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Some of them definatly fit-I appreciate the Frontline dates for instance. However, in regards to "fitting," I'm not sure what rationale there is for compressing the GW and BW. If there was some kind of inherant issue with BW stretching into 2501 I could understand, but instead it's left dry and bare apart from Nova's training (and Ghost Academy strongly implied it occurred in 2502).--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

1) We've only said the Great War and Brood War took place over 2500 to 2501 due to combining two sources (Nova and I, Mengsk), both of which threw around the term "six months". In the latter case (and most likely the former) the authors weren't necessarily following set guidelines. Nova's did sort of work out (eg the timing of the attack on Atticus Minor seems to match with the timing of the end of the Battle of Antiga Prime from Nova). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 02:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

(and looking at the YouTube preview, there's definetly a lack of any A/N to confirm this. It's simply presented in a cross-promotion method similar to the Warcraft novels). --Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

What is A/N? (Anything?) While it's certainly mentioning all those novels, that could be Pocket Books demanding Blizzard add the novel names to them. On the other hand, it's just easier to name the novels and factoids than writing a larger wiki-style timeline. (They've only got 10-13 pages to work with.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

A/N stands for "author's notes," the kind of thing one finds as dedications and thanks, or explaining certain things in fanfiction (common tactic for explaining certain decisions and interpretations of characters. The thing with HD's timeline is that it's lacking any mention of official involvement. If it said "as written by Blizzard" or Metzen, then as peeved as I'd be, I wouldn't be writing stuff here. But as it's lacking, it makes me wonder.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Where would Simon & Schuster have gotten that information from other than Blizzard? I can't picture Simon & Schuster having the "right" to invent timeline information for themselves. Other than being fed the info from Blizzard, there's nothing else I can see that makes sense. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 02:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind that both novels and manga are referenced in the Warcraft appendicies by Pocketbooks, and by way of preview, Tokyopop did the same with Vol. 5 of Legends. It's the SAME FORMAT and it reeks of Pocket's manual of style.--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

That I didn't know. I've read several Warcraft books but basically nothing past Night of the Dragon (and skipped all the manga beyond the Sunwell Trilogy). I did notice the Sunwell Trilogy did have previews in a few products (I think in the terrible War of the Ancients series or maybe Cycle of Hatred and Rise of the Horde), although they were excerpt-types, not the manual of style you're referring to. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

The MoS applies to Arthas and Stormrage-I think Night of the Dragon might have had it too. Basically, it's a mention of related products, how they tie in with the novel in question. While not a timeline, the referencing system is very similar. While the timeline is a different format, it seems to have the same goal of cross promotion. After all, one can't tie in that many novels with Heaven's Devils itself. And certain references are used for timeline blurbs that actually don't provide the information in the relative novel.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

And entertaining the idea that HD's timeline is correct, you're asking us to compress six episodes into a one year period, plus the DLC missions? With a timeframe that short, it's a wonder why the UED even bothered with cryo, considering how quickly they must have arrived at the K-sector. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Brood War was a year after the Great War, using cryo was pointless anyway, except possibly that popsicle people need less food, water and air.

Given all the timeline problems this site has been having, I'm personally looking forward to just getting some "official dates" from Blizzard. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I guess a compramise could be reached if we adapt a polciy similar to WowWiki, to keep the compiled timeline as the de-facto one, and list HD's timeline as its own. Still, I'm guessing you won't agree to that.--Hawki 00:19, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

We can't contradict Blizzard on this. What remains to be seen is just how Blizzard-written/accurate the timeline is, but I'm thinking it is. (Of course, accuracy is hard to determine given we're dealing with retcons here.) But I don't think we can use our guesswork as something superior to Blizzard's. (And by "guesswork", I'm taking into account that authors prior to late 2008 seemingly had to make up timelines by themselves with limited guidance&mdash;McNeill used websites for advice, and he wrote his book in March 2008!&mdash;and also it's unlikely the authors weren't working together. It's entirely possible neither DeCandido nor McNeill never exchanged emails; there doesn't appear to be any central authority coordinating their work.

I think the anger* here is because
 * 1) A lot of work you've personally done for the wiki looks about to be undone.
 * 2) A lot of changes you don't agree with (eg how long the wars took).

I can't do anything about the former, but when it comes to the latter, a lot of stuff in the StarCraft universe just doesn't make sense, and there have been a lot of recent retcons, even in not-directly-Blizzard-published books compared to the manual and game itself. (For instance, before Mar Sara and Char appeared on the official website, it was pretty obvious there had been far more than thirteen terran planets, just from the names listed in the various products.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:48, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * And yes, I'll use the term anger. If you're getting comments deleted from other fansites due to tone, you need to calm down a bit. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:52, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I only had comments removed from Blizzplanet, the only place I commented apart from Sclegacy. I made three posts-the one that's still there, a copy/paste of the discrepencies posted in the HD article and in response to Med's statement that he'd send the concerns to Metzen, a "really? Thanks!" post-nothing more. So while I can appreciate the deletion due to possible...well, whatever, I wouldn't call it anger. Course that's subjective.

Anyway, since I better get back to writing out a report on the wonders of syngery in water management, I may as well try to bring this to an end, as this debate is going nowhere and as Blizzard admittedly has the final word, academic. All we can do is wait (or I suppose you're entitled to go ahead with your view as you're the head sysop). And if it does turn out to be accurate-well, suffice to say that it'll take more than just timeline pasting. Yes, it's fair to say that I probably have subjective thoughts, but it's the sheer scale that daunts me-Nova's article will have to be rewritten for instance to tone down her starvation at Fagin for instance, not to mention the crime lord succumbing much faster to psychosis. Kerrigan's article will have to be rewritten to account for the new Shadow of the Xel'naga timeframe. There are other examples of course, but suffice to say that unlike other retcons, such as the core worlds, Duke's rank or Artanis being the Ep. III Executor, the issue is so all encompassing that if it comes to it, I can't promise I'll have the heart to do it, based purely on energy and time constraints. Anyway, I will at least make the request that we/you hold off from applying the HD timeline wholesale-Med himself pointed out how the content of 'Arthas' was changed due to fan feedback under similar circumstances to the ones we face now, so I'm holding on to hope that "second time lucky" will work.

Also means that all my fanfic stuff I've got posted will likely be rendered null too but that's beside the point.--Hawki 01:59, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect you to do that work. I was under the impression that I'd have to do most of it myself, actually. This isn't the kind of place where we issue "work orders". (As for Shadow of the Xel'Naga, I swear it'll give me a headache; fortunately, Kerrigan's role in that novel was limited!) And when it comes to Nova's starvation and Fagin's craziness, the six months timeline actually still applies (if you use direct timestamps from the first couple of missions and then the timestamp from the StarCraft comic; it actually works out to six months.)

The timestamps for the first missions only cover the 2499 late period. If the HD timeline is accurate, I would recomend keeping the absolute dates up to the point of Mar Sara's destruction, as the compression doesn't really effect them. It's after that that things get hairy. And the six month standard is also used in I, Mengsk between the Dominion's founding and BW and is used again between Nova beginning training at the academy and saying farewell to Kelerchian. I don't think it would be consistant to have one and not the other.--Hawki 02:29, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do have timestamps, even if we ignore Nova as a source. The StarCraft comic placed the battle of Atticus Minor (which we know was at or right after the psi-emitter incident) six months after the invasion of Mar Sara. So six months for Episode I appears to stand. (Although, of course, that's not "hard-and-fast", since it doesn't tell us how long it took to smack down Tarsonis.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:35, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Furman stated in an interview that the Battle of Atticus Minor took place between the fall of Antiga Prime and the Fall of Tarsonis. As for Tarsonis itself, it pretty much went down hard and fast going by Liberty's Crusade and Queen of Blades. As for the timestamp, entertaining the idea that HD's timeline is correct, it's still at the cost of ignoring timestamps in The Iron Fist. Personally, while I'd choose a timestamp over a relative date if there was contradiction, I don't see timestamps as having that much superiority over them, not to mention that the June figure is tying in with the six months relative timeframe in Nova. So, if HD is correct, it seems that the retcon is designed to remove such figures altogether, as compressing episodes 2 to 6 in a six month period is more...compressed (that's diplomacy for you) than spreading out all the episodes.--Hawki 02:07, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The timestamps from Iron Fist aren't worth much, however. They're only found in that one cinematic, and they use a different year system (872 vs 2500/1). Given that the Koprulu Sector uses 27 hour time (as shown in the Changeling story), one wonders whether the dates really match up. Furthermore, facts from the game itself have been retconned in "lower-tier" sources before. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 11:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The lower tier facts that have retconned material have always had the benefit of the same retcon being enacted from higher material-hence why we've altered material accordingly for Duke and Artanis, and left Korhal be apart from material in the notes section. And a three hour difference ammounts to 5 extra days per year, and judging by time-stamps in Rebel Yell, this doesn't really drag on. Speculative of how, or if the K-sector handles the extra time, but speculation still takes backseat to presentation of dates and months figures.--Hawki 21:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Ghost Academy actually implied 2502. I read into that, probably in error, because I didn't understand what "fourth class" meant before seeing the actual product. (Fourth class isn't the last year, it's actually just starting your ghost career.) Ghost Academy doesn't necessarily include Nova's last year of training. It looks like Blizzard wants Nova to be "fresh from the Academy" when they do Spectres. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 02:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I got 2502 from Tosh's experience with the C-10. In his article, it's mentioned how he joined the Dominion as a hardcore loyalist, which seems to imply that he became a ghost under the Dominion rather than Confederacy. Langdaman mentions how he's been fieldstripping the C-10 for two years and the rifle isn't used by non-ghosts as I recall. So when one combines these statements together, it appears that Tosh joined in 2500 and is nearing the end of his training two years later.--Hawki 02:29, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

As for the Arthas timeline changes, just what happened here? How big were they, and how long did fansites have to wait to get that info? If the changes were relatively small, it'd make sense to put in the changes as-is and then change things (again) when changes come out. (I used the word change too much there, didn't I?) I'd rather not having Inc.Gamers putting up an almost accurate timeline for months while we wait for Blizzard to do things "quickly". PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 02:17, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Arthas changes weren't timeline based (in regards to timeline, 'Arthas' was quite accurate and conformed to the fan based 25 year standard for WCIII), but character based, how Golden had confused the characters Falric and Varo'then. While a farcry from this, I could at least appreciate it as the same principle in a sense. I can't provide a timeframe however. Anyway, provided Metzen actually replies, I don't see corrections this close to publication-it'll probably be a simple statement one way or the other, if at all. That indeed may be the largest issue, as to whether we conform to the precautionary principle and if we do, how long. You know my stance already I guess.--Hawki 02:29, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to consider-even if the timeline is written by Blizzard, wouldn't that technically fall into third tier canon, the type used for stories such as Hybrid and Uprising? Experience has shown that even material written by Blizzard isn't without errors and while I find the reasoning behind this policy...reasonable, I also have to wonder what wholesale adaptation of the timeline would state about our consistancy. Would we have to say that Forest's seven cycles figure for the Guild Wars is more valid than every other four years figure bar HD, or that Korhal had a population of 35 million? Obviously in every discrepencies section of every novel there are certain variations that some might consider legitimate alterations (e.g. I personally find battlecruisers nuking Korhal more realistic, though the population figure is another issue). Anyway, if there's detailed explanation as to the timeline's source that points to it being a trump card, I suppose we'll have to follow suit, but if we get a simple statement that it's by Blizzard and nothing else, and we elevate it to first tier canon, then I have to wonder what that would do to the wiki's canon policy.--Hawki 02:22, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, the timeline isn't a "story". It doesn't fall under "Blizzard-published fiction" since it is not fictional within the universe. It's more like material written in a manual. And of course, we've yet to read the whole book. The whole thing could be explained in a section written by Chris Metzen at the book's beginning, or something along those lines. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 11:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The map data sets aren't stories either, but it still counts as third tier. And the point of a manual is that it is meant to tie-in with the game, hence the elevated tier and closer proximity to first. The HD timeline is a presentation of fictional facts with no linkage to Wings of Liberty, or by way of referencing, any other game for that matter (and the referencing seems so 'desperate at times, then I have to wonder if it was written by someone from the creative department, who has the "final say" as you put it, would even bother). It still uses the novel format, with further proximity from Blizzard.

And judging by the YouTube preview, the only place one could slip in author's notes is between the last page of the story proper and the "about the author" section. Suffice to say, that's unlikely.--Hawki 21:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Desperate referencing? Well, it doesn't matter how much Simon & Schuster wants to advertise. There's no evidence they're just making up dates there. And we really can't pretend StarCraft II will be in 2505 when it's become obvious it will be in 2504 (with all the mess that will entail). When StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty comes out, I don't want to be spending time changing all those dates. It's best to do that now. (Well, in a week.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I hardly consider the 2504 date to be "obvious," what with debate as to how valid the timeline is. And my opposite approach is to not jump the gun and change dates when the validity of the timeline is in question and even contradicts material from StarCraft II itself (you want to change dates twice then?). I'm guessing the week figure stems from Heaven's Devils itself, but I wouldn't call the novel much of an issue, judging by the references to it in the timeline (seemingly ends in 2495). Course that's another possible discrepency, as Raynor and Tychus actually parting ways then contradicts Metzen's earlier statement.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Timeline Policy
We have a canon policy and a speculation policy, but no timeline policy. The canon policy doesn't even mention timelines. This leaves a vacuum which needs to be solved in ... seven days from the time of this post.

We have no policy on how we set dates (important for when cobbled together from two or three sources, from authors who admit they don't have timeline information), or how we value timestamps. We have no policy on what counts as "fictional" and what is closer to information derived from a manual/more-proper Blizzard source, and it doesn't help that we don't always have the best information on this.

We don't have a policy even on how we order things, other than a template which vaguely tells a reader that the material isn't necessarily in the proper order. We end up assigning fairly specific dates to events such as Resurrection IV that we have only the vaguest timeline information on. (This is a violation of the speculation policy.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Under the old timeline, Resurrection IV takes place in '01 based on Raynor's appearances and comments. It's only if BW is moved to 00 that it becomes ambiguous and will have to be removed.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't necessarily. That's speculation. We're just guessing it was shortly after Brood War. There's no other proof, and certainly no timestamp. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

And on a vaguely related note, we might want to do something about the "Blizzard statement" policy. Sometimes Blizzard employees make off-the-cuff remarks which they later contradict (eg infested protoss) or shift over time (for instance, we were originally told the Dark Templar Saga takes places four years after the Brood War at BlizzCon 2007, then we were told it could be up to a year earlier in an interview, then in Heaven's Devils' timeline we're told it actually took place a year later). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Difference is, HD isn't a statement. We have different ideas as to what it is, but nothing concrete. And keep in mind that we were also told in the same interview that it took place in year 4 after BW, the many months or a year coming afterwards. That still indicates the same year, just with a significant time different between the DTS and SCII.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm comparing the HD timeline to off-the-cuff statements, and we know the latter aren't always accurate. In fact, the HD timeline even makes Valerian Mengsk's birth date make sense. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

At the cost of Tychus's...--Hawki 14:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that a timestamp (with an actual year or more accurate date) is worth more than something figured from a novel, even if the story fairly specifically says "this happened four years after the Brood War". It is my opinion that a timestamp from a later source "trumps" an earlier source. It isn't just my opinion, but something stated directly from Blizzard, that they didn't even have a timeline until recently (and it wasn't shared with authors as late as March 2008). And it is my opinion that, along with other "in-universe facts", that timeline material can be retconned by Blizzard, which has numerous ways of making these facts known to the audience.PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's assuming that the time stamp is genuinely correct and not an error. From experience, time stamps are double edged swords and while they can provide extra detail, they can also lead to contradictions. From experience, setting time stamps as inherantly superior to relative dates is a road to disaster-by way of example, it's one that Wookiepedia is still reeling from for about a year.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't automatically assume information is incorrect, just because you don't agree with it. As for Wookiepedia, I don't know what's going on there. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * And we might want to touch up the canon policy as well. While we organize things in a hierarchy, all the recent retcons (eg number of Confederate worlds) have made that untenable. Third-tier material was trumping first-tier material even before StarCraft II was even announced (on that specific point, as an example). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:06, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the core worlds issue is recent per se, but third tier material was contradicting higher tier material in the same timeframe and even from the same source (e.g. Uprising was correct about Duke's rank, but as of now, HD validity or not, incorrect about the millenia figure).--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can merge a timeline policy into a revised canon policy. Both ultimately deal with discriminating valid from invalid sources, and then discussing where and when certain sources should take precedence over others. Alas, apparently these are no longer the simple things we once thought they were.

A revised canon policy will, it seems, need to be more flexible. The tier system should be done away with. That section can be easily transformed into a list of "acceptable sources". This can be followed by a short section on the challenges regarding retcons, newer sources contradicting old, the merits of when and how to incorporate this information, and so on and so forth. That would probably end with the critical note that the preference when contradictions arise should be to talk about it first before committing to anything, which is more or less what happens now.

The revised policy won't help the current dilemma but it will more accurately reflect how things are done. - Meco (talk, contribs) 02:04, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Such a policy sounds very subjective, essentially ammounting to favouratism as to what counts as valid and what doesn't. The tier system is impersonal. A degree of leeway can be established, if certain facts/figures are given that make absolutely no sense, but even then, we'd have to be careful.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

The current non-timeline policy is very subjective, and we're not even following our own canon policy due to problems (eg retcons). Any policy is subjective anyway. When people on this wiki first proposed adding policies (this was around BlizzCon 2007) I initially opposed them for fear they'd tie our hands. I asked Meco to write our policies because anything I'd write would probably be too restrictive. In any event, this doesn't mean our policies can't change to fit "facts on the ground". PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:30, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

The "levels of Blizzard canon" is an invention of this wiki (or, more likely, by me); it's not set-in-stone, nor is it official. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 19:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

And even if the timeline in HD is by Blizzard, Warcraft and Diablo stand as testament that this isn't some holy tome. There's still discrepency in Warcraft at times as to whether to use the Year 20 or Year 25 standard. Diablo's timeline matched up perfectly with the dates in the manuals. And in the realm of StarCraft, we're suddenly given a timeline that defies the norm of not appearing on a game site and contradicting established events. If you're going by the view that this is on the road to make things better, why did the creative department go from sloppy, to concise, back to sloppy again? Or, did the creative department go from sloppy to concise and didn't mire themselves in such contradictions? I understand that this is a StarCraft site and levels of exposure to Blizzard's other universes will vary, but from experience, the HD timeline stands out like a black sheep from its white wooled counterparts and seems about as 'evil' as one.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I have every reason to believe the game-relevant information (eg year StarCraft II takes place) will match the timeline. And we can't for the game to come out to do those changes then. There's nothing abnormal about the timeline not matching previous events; Warcraft's timeline is already messed up that way. That is the essence of retcons, and why people don't like them. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt also, considering the timeline defies dates in StarCraft II, it seems like a very flexible basis. And in light of the accuracy of Diablo's timeline, I'd say a lack of matching up is abnormal. Or, as I suspect, it was written in such a way that accidents happen and it belongs to third/fourth tier. And I wouldn't say Warcrafts timeline in practice is messed up-Arthas stands in testament to this. What is messed up is the timeline Blizzard originally posted. There's stark testament to how built-up timelines are more accurate than ones posted wholesale.--Hawki 14:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

No, I would say Warcraft's timeline is messed up. Fixing issues in Arthas is good, but there are still huge gaps and problems in the Warcraft timeline. Grom Hellscream's article at Wowwiki, last time I checked, specifically mentioned this issue. Garona's age/parentage also ran smack into this problem. (The timeline retcons enabled her parentage to actually make sense, but this involved a retcon of The Last Guardian.) As for the accuracy of built-up timelines, they should still use Blizzard's dates when provided, especially when plainly stated. After all, Blizzard is in charge of writing the universe and has the authority to retcon things. We're just reporting it. IIRC, Warcraft only started using dates (rather than relative timing) recently, and even Wowwiki's timeline uses these dates. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 19:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I know that Warcraft began with absolute dates and then abandoned them-wasn't aware of absolute dates coming back. Regardless, given the "plainly stated" original World of Warcraft timeline and how it screws up the ages of characters such as Thrall and Talen, I'm glad for outside dating that makes more sense.

(Forget the exact words, but I remember watching a wiki conference with Kirkburn, how it was mentioned how the virtue of wikis is that fans have the benefit of being outside observers, such a perspective making it easier for them to spot mistakes than the creators. It's something I agree with, at least in principle).--Hawki 21:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

And how recent the timeline is is another matter-DeCandido is still listed as writing Spectres, indicating that the timeline was written alongside HD with faulty info rather than developed seperatly from Pocket and inserted in after all was said and done.--Hawki 02:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

No he isn't. Check his article or that of Spectres; it being written by Nate Kenyon. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 12:27, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I meant he's listed in the HD timeline as writing it. That seems to indicate the timeline was part of the novel's publishing as opposed to being inserted from an outside source.--Hawki 14:24, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

If anything, Pocket Books should have a better idea of who's writing Spectres than Blizzard as they're closer to that product :) DeCandido finished writing Spectres in July 2009, although he still had post-production work to go through. Nate Kenyon was only recently announced as the author behind Spectres&mdash;it's entirely possible the book had reached final edit status by then. And Blizzard having the timeline ready before Heaven's Devils was ready makes sense anyway; someone had to inform Dietz how many years to put between chapter X and chapter X+1. (Something Blizzard didn't do with I, Mengsk.)

I would have thought Blizzard hired him? I don't know, the change seemed odd either way considering DeCandido's 'ghost experience. Meh. And something about I, Mengsk-I know what McNeil said, but isn't it odd that his timing of the events of Uprising coincide with the new timeline? If it's Pocket based, it's something I don't have an issue with, but if it's Blizzard based, who gave McNeil no guidance...well, that's a pretty big co-incidence.--Hawki 21:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

But that's actually irrelevant; it doesn't matter if Pocket screwed up their advertising by getting the author wrong. What's important is where they're getting their dates from. Pocket doesn't get to make up lore information; that's handled through Blizzard's Creativity Department. Pocket also doesn't get to make up dates for Blizzard/Tokyopop products, even if their motives include shilling for Spectres. Only Blizzard or authors get to make stuff up, and unless Mr. Dietz wants to take credit for writing timeline information for Tokyopop products...

It depends what you mean by "creating" lore. I've read the guidelines, but in the contet of Twilight Archon and Colin Phash, that stemmed from authors first rather than coming from Blizzard (classic chicken and egg scenario). And in a sense, Pocket isn't making dates up, as per the sourcing. Making dates up would imply no prior thought, but they seem to be taking reference, which is correct in some cases and errornous in others.--Hawki 21:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Even if the timeline started out as some sort of PR thing, with Pocket calling up Blizzard and asking permission to make a timeline, they still had to ask Blizzard for those dates. (Or alternatively, Blizzard told them to put this timeline in their product, and Pocket decided to stick "ads" in the timeline, figuring people were going to look at it anyway.) Crass? So what? People pay for books. Even if it's overly expensive (like, frankly, Heaven's Devils; but I'm a sucker for Blizzard fiction and can't wait seven months for a half-price softcover).

It's one thing to ask Blizzard to be able to make a timeline. It's another to ask them for dates. We don't know how much oversight went into the timeline and Blizzard or Pocket, with everything we've seen, I'd say not much (Blizzard isn't above mistakes-you pointed out Warcraft as a good example).

Minor note, I wouldn't call HD that exorbiant in price, at least on Amazon. I'd get it for 55 Aussie dollars down here, which when one factors in the exchange rate, saves me about 20-25 dollars overall. Still, given the ammount of money I've had to spend on uni this term, getting it immediatly is a bit of an issue...--Hawki 21:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean HD's timeline is being held to a different standard than material taken from the various novels? Yes. It's plainly stated, it doesn't need to be cobbled from multiple sources, and doesn't require us to interpret anything. It's even more plainly stated than information in the original manual (we can be a year off trying to figure out when a character was born when we use their birthdate; or just compare the Brood War heroes page birthdates with what's in the manual; while Kerrigan's age increased by one, Fenix's increased by two and Zeratul's didn't change at all). I used that as "evidence" of the duration of the wars (and I have to bear the blame for that). Even the inconsistencies are actually fairly minor, for the most part. (We have Findlay's age [which might correspond with what's in the novel or final game release anyway], KMC founding image-thing and bits of info from a Brood War cinematic... anything else is coming from non-Blizzard authors who have to make up timeline information for themselves.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 19:29, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

It's a different standard, one which by way of absolute dates, doesn't require much thought (I guess I inherantly value relative dates over absolute ones, as they require more thought). It's plainly stated, but cobbled from various sources nonetheless. The timeline you originally cobbled together is still more accurate, as the year evidence was backed up by later sources. And "minor" is the last word I'd use for inconsistancies-Tychus's age isn't that relevant, but the others are-the KMC timeline founding date pretty much screws up at least half of I, Mengsk and would ruin Heaven's Devils itself. Tychus's age might be in the novel as what it is in the timeline, but as the timeline is coming from HD, then that seems like sourcing an errornous date from Deitz himself rather than from Blizzard.

And assuming the timeline is from Blizzard, then we have to ask why didn't they share it with DeCandido for Ghost Academy, which has also been done over by it. Is it some kind of April's fools, to do a number on 12 years of lore five days after April Fools? If so, I suppose the "fools" aspect translates into in-universe madness and causes Kerrigan, Koronis and his fleet, Zeratul and Zamara to undergo some kind of mass hallucination that gives them some 'crazy' ideas as to when certain events took place.

You know, I can't help but wonder why this is still being discussed, why HD is granted some divine protection in regards to oversight when every other discrepency was treated as an error out of hand Novas Valkyrie and Firstborns Ara Tribe come to mind. :(--Hawki 21:56, March 31, 2010 (UTC)