Talk:Timeline/Archive 1

WARNING: Talk:Timeline/Archive 1 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Timeline.

Page comments

This page is fantastic! Are you going to add this to the main site, or are you working on it apart from everything else? Ryangibsonstewart 02:21, 27 November 2006 (EST)

• Mohinder's opening scene in Genesis is labeled "3 days ago". Would that make it ... September 27? That would make Chandra's death sometime around Sep 26 or 27.--Hardvice (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2006 (EST)

• Yes, good catch! Sounds right to me... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2006 (EST)

• something about this page confuses me and makes my eyes hurt! Heroe

Time to do some formatting work on this page?

I tried looking something up on the Timeline just now, and I feel that it has a layout that is far from easy to read. It has great content, and I feel it really deserves a brush-up. I was thinking something adapting a stricter hierarchy of headings where you have years, months and days as subsequently lower level headings. That way it would be much easier to get a feeling for how time elapses. Cuardin 11:48, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I'm not opposed to that idea - I think it would be kind of helpful. Why don't you go ahead and make some edits, and we'll see how it looks. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Ok, I went throught it really fast and I think it is better now. However, there was one thing I am not sure if I did right. The GN Turning Point was labled July 2006, and I assumed that was a type meaning July 2005. Otherwise it is a future episode. -- Cuardin 16:09, 14 January 2007 (EST)

No, it wasn't a typo. The beginning of the graphic novel says it takes place "Three months ago", which would be July. As for the year, the bulk of the show takes place in 2006. For instance, Claire's Homecoming Dance is on October 11th, 2006, not 2005. This needs to be fixed in the timeline. (See Nathan's receipt to confirm the year.) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk)

OK, I placed a 2006 where I think it belongs. If the show takes place in the fall of 2006 then this should be more or less right. -- Cuardin 16:33, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Looks right to me. I still think the page needs a lot of help, but I like that you made the TOC a bit more ... understandable. I don't have any other suggestions, though. Maybe a table? Dunno. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2007 (EST)

What I would really like to see is some form of graphic timeline, but for that we need some form of dynamic scripts so that the user can colapse and expand dates and events. In some digital encyclopedias, like Encarta, I've seen this sort of thing done very well, but never on the internet unfortunately. Cuardin 01:42, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Check out this discussion about some software called EasyTimeline (and its help pages) that Admin installed. If you can figure it out, it could be very useful. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2007 (EST)

See Timeline/Test for testing w/ EasyTimeline. --Orne 12:43, 15 January 2007 (EST)

OK, I did some laboratory work on the timeline, and after having read through the help available, I unfortunately think that the EasyTimeline isn't nearly as powerfull as we need it to be. Tha fact that it can't label axis with anything but years is a major setback. Unless we find something more flexible, I think we should stick to the format we have. It isn't so very pretty, but at least it is absolutely clear what we are saying. -- Cuardin 14:50, 15 January 2007 (EST)

One more thing about this timeline. Would it be possible to have a template that indents subsections? The TOC looks really great, but the text is still just one long linear mess. It would be nice if everything that is part of a section si indented, and then everything that is part of a subsection is indented twice and so on. Preferably in a way that does not require manual coding. Is it possible? -- Cuardin 04:55, 16 January 2007 (EST)

I think it is possible by adjusting the style sheets of the page, which we cannot do. So, that leaves it as a manual job. We could do it with Tables, or with the HTML Definition List element. --Orne 09:33, 16 January 2007 (EST)

<DL><DT>Title</DT><DD>Definition</DD></DL>

It is just that as soon as people start doing fancy HTML in wikis, things get unmaintainable fast. Just look at the Theories page. Sure, the code is readable, but just barely. -- Cuardin 01:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Homecoming

• The episode Homecoming keeps mentioning the homecoming game and then the dance. Wouldn't that be more likely to be a Friday (Oct. 20) than a Sunday (Oct. 22)? Where did the 22nd date come from? --Fcphantom 01:39, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Well, 3 weeks from Monday the 1st... I don't like it either, High School Homecomings are almost always a Friday or a Saturday. --Orne 11:36, 30 November 2006 (EST)
    • She probably just didn't mean "three weeks" literally. If something was happening 19-20 days from now, I'd say "three weeks", even though it's not 3 weeks to the day. Of course, that makes our job harder (and quite likely impossible)--Hardvice (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Hiro's Return

• Is it safe to assume Hiro returned to the present on Oct 22 if he had to fly from Japan and take a bus? I'm guessing he probably came back at least a day early.--Hardvice (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • Reading comprehension is hard.--Hardvice (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Time between Charlie's murder and Homecoming

In Claire's blog on her myspace page it suggests that there is a week or two between Charlie's murder and Homecoming.

Friday, November 17, 2006 Homecoming

--Level 14:22, 30 November 2006 (EST)

• Claire's blog isn't the show, though. Was Ando really sitting there in the diner for a week or two? Would they really allow that?--Hardvice (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2006 (EST)
  • I don't buy that Ando was waiting more than 24 hours, though I'm speculating, of course... Is Claire's blog considered canon now? Hope not ... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2006 (EST)
    • It's an interesting question. I'm thinking that Claire's blog is part of the show, seeing as it was originally an easter egg from the graphic novels. Seems a little odd for NBC to point to a fanboy site directly like that. Then again, it might be like the Lost diary, which was connected to the show.. but wasn't canon (turned out it was being written by several different folks who worked backstage at the show). - Yoshie (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2006 (EST)
      • In a weird way, we have an advantage in that the main NBC site for Heroes itself has proven unreliable, what with, y'know, claiming DL was the Haitian and all. I'd say we can safely ignore anything that comes from NBC.--Hardvice (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2006 (EST)
        • DL as the Haitian? When did that happen? - Yoshie (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2006 (EST)
          • The caption for this photo used to read "...but she's right. DL—Mr. Bennet's cleaner—hides just around the corner." It was laughed up pretty badly at the time.--Hardvice (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2006 (EST)
            • Hrm, I hadn't heard that. :) - Yoshie (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2006 (EST)
      • Although there was some evidence on the show that hinted there was more time, it was disproven in Fallout. -Level 14:44, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Self-consistency Theory

• I'm glad the self-consistency theory was added to the timeline page - it's a pretty important concept to the show, and adds to Hiro's character (I think a blurb about it on Hiro's page is necessary - maybe even a page for the theory itself?) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Consistent Formatting for Dates

I think we need to come up with consistent formatting for dates... I've seen, for instance, 22 October, October 22, and October 22nd. Even on the timeline itself, we have October 14-20, and right below it is is October 20th. I personally vote for the "October 22" model, but whatever... - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (EST)

Timeline Irregularities

• Mohinder's statement about James Walker, and Zach's statement to Claire that he's "only been (her) friend for two weeks" seem to call the entire timeline into question. James was killed the morning of Don't Look Back, which should be October 2nd (making the date of Mohinder's phone call October 11). Claire and Zach resumed their friendship on October 1st, making their two-week "anniverary" about October 15th. When you discount for "Six Months Ago", both of these statements are roughly consistent with the one episode = one day (or so) approach. I'm thinking the writers are trying to ditch the "homecoming's three weeks away" line, and that's what our entire timeline hinges on. Also, our current timeline means that Hiro and Ando took sixteen days to go from Los Angeles to west Texas.--Hardvice (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2006 (EST)
  • I work at a University - I'll see if I can find someone here who can read the Japanese newspaper and find a date. --Fcphantom 13:22, 5 December 2006 (EST)
    • No good. There's no date (and apparently no mention of sparrows or dragons either). Besides, it was from Six Months Ago so wouldn't have been as helpful as I thought. --Fcphantom 16:32, 5 December 2006 (EST)
  • You make an excellent point, Hardvice. At first, I played it off as a character error - maybe Clair was just estimating, or maybe she didn't count her friendship with Zach from the first day. But I never did the Hiro/Ando math, and that's pretty convincing.
    
    It seems to me that perhaps the writers are dealing with some inconsistencies, and are now, maybe, trying to "cover" themselves. I don't know the best way to deal with this on the timeline, though ... Let's hope we get some more dates (a la Ben telling Jack what day it was on "Lost") in the near future. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2006 (EST)
    • Maybe they'll even peruse this wiki and realize we're scrutinizing the timeline and start being very careful about it from now on. ;) (Admin 22:38, 5 December 2006 (EST))
    • I'll try to work out some new dates for this page, based on the information in Fallout. However, I'm going to keep all of the quotes/comments that characters make during the previous shows relating to the passage of time. My personal opinion is the pilot was written several months before the show was picked up full-time, and the script at that time did not properly account for the amount of action that the writers want to occur before the explosion. Incidentally, if the date is Oct 11, and the explosion is Nov 8, that gives them 4 weeks for everyone to make their way to NYC --Orne 11:15, 6 December 2006 (EST)
• What's interesting to me though is that if the date is now Oct 11, that would make Homecoming a Tuesday night, which goes against almost all high school practice. However, it occurs to me that maybe we've been incorrectly thinking that the scene in the school in Homcoming occurs on Homecoming day, when in reality, what we've been seeing is the preparation for homecoming, and the game that the cheerleaders are going to is the Bishop game (which was roughly a week from the first episode). --Orne 11:15, 6 December 2006 (EST)
  • Simone tells Peter that "Homecoming is tonight", though.--Hardvice (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2006 (EST)
    • Shoot, forgot about that... --Orne 13:39, 6 December 2006 (EST)
• The show may be running into problems by inconsistently trying to merge the show's present timeline with the viewer's real time. I noticed this in Claire's Myspace page where she posts as if she is on Winter break now, but the events of her life match the point in time where the show left off. I can only assume that after the new episodes air, her Myspace comments will have to interact with the events of those shows even though they will probably have occurred back in October and November, not January. Then again, the Myspace pages shouldn't really be acceptable data sources for Heroes info.

Moved from Category talk:Timeline

I'm confused. It doesn't seem that the date for the Walker's murder could be correct (we currently have it listed as October 13th). Wasn't the Walker murder scene the first meeting of Matt and Audrey? This would then have to precede the date where Matt meets The Haitian (I'd have to consult the episodes, but would be a few days prior at least, if recollection serves), listed as October 6th. One of these dates is wrong as far as I can tell. Or did the meeting with The Haitian and Matt take place in a flashback? It didn't seem so, the bar scene with The Haitian revolves around Matt playing with his telepathy abilities, which he seemed totally unaware of until right around the time of the FBI situation.

Look at the recap for One Giant Leap. I'll quote what we have there:

1. "Matt aids the FBI in the search for Sylar, then falls prey to a mysterious stranger at a bar."

So something is off. A minor point, but I figure I'll find *something* to be my initial contribution to the wiki!

Xanen 17:41, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Dates in other articles

We have a bunch of dates in other articles, mostly deathdates, which are now incorrect with the current assumed timeline. How should we handle this? Personally, I'd favor making the dates month-only until we get more information and can really lock things down (though I'll bet our current timeline proves to be more accurate).--Hardvice (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2006 (EST)

I think an approx date is fine for now - I'm sure we'll get more info as the series progresses. I just don't want to be the one to have to go through and change all those dates. RyanLazyBonesStewart 02:40, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Heh

I just noticed that our new timeline puts Homecoming (and thus Zach's is-he-or-isn't-he conversation with Claire) on October 11 -- National Coming Out Day. Curious coincidence, or the creators being sneaky?--Hardvice (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2006 (EST)

A little tongue-in-cheek, perhaps. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Wireless, Part One

"My Tanta braved Auschwitz. My mother waged the war of independence... They played by the rules of engagement and survived."

If Hana was referring to the Israeli War of Independence, which I assume she was, then Zahava would have been in what was more widely known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Oh, and the Six-Day War which Zahava participated in occurred between the 5th and 10th of June, 1967 --Joshtek 09:57, 29 December 2006 (EST)

• If Zahava fought in 1948, that would have made her extremely young, since her mother fought the Nazis in 1945. She fought in the Six-Day War in 1967, as noted in the graphic novel. When Hana refers to the fact that her mother "waged the war of indepence", she was not referring to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, but the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (aka the Six-Day War). Hope that helps! :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2006 (EST)
  • I had just assumed they were just being sloppy with their dates as Hana's grandmother seems to age a bit too much between 1944 and 1989. I thought that it was only the 1948 that was the War of Independence but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. --Joshtek 21:07, 29 December 2006 (EST)
    • Yes, I know - countries should have a cap on how many wars they have each century. sigh. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Cleanup

This page is in serious need of some major cleanup. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Timeline Confirmation Points

Excellent forum post with some timeline confirmation points we've missed: here Some highlights:

• Nathan's hotel bill covers October 5-6. (Collision, ep. 4, through Hiros, ep. 5)
• The paper Peter reads to Charles from in the dream is dated in November (he says 9th, I can't make it out) -- but it's a dream

We should incorporate this and double-check our dates. He seems to be dead on.--Hardvice (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

• Except ... the hotel receipt means we lose a day between Don't Look Back (October 2nd) and Collision (October 5th, according to the receipt). The events in One Giant Leap pretty much have to take place in a day: Matt starts off in Audrey's custody and ends up captured by the Haitian. Niki starts off burying the thugs, and ends up being brought in for questioning. Choosing either the 3rd or the 4th causes different problems under this timeline (e.g. Niki's either burying thugs for 24 hours or being brought in by the cop for 24 hours). It could be, as the poster above states, that the events in DLB take place on Oct 2 (Hiro) and Oct 3 (everybody else), but Mr. Bennet's paper pretty clearly reads October 2. This requires more thinking, and maybe plotting out who's where in which episode.--Hardvice (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • Okay, stream of consciousness thinking here - I'm not really suggesting anything, just playing devil's advocate. What if Niki passed out after burying the thugs - for 24 hours. Or Matt is held in custody for 24 hours. Or the Mr. Bennet's paper was a day old.

    I think it's safe to assume that the writers will not necessarily keep all the events of an episode on the same day. The timeline is not exactly linear (see Mohinder's "3 days ago" timeline in Genesis, and all of Six Months Ago).

    Man, you're right - my brain hurts. Calgon, take me away! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2007 (EST)

    • Interestingly, Matt tells Ted in 7MtM that he "lost two days" when he blacked out, even though Janice said he was missing for "a whole day" when he turned up. This could account for the missing day. Of course, Niki's timeline in the early episodes is still super broken unless she was passed out with the dead thugs overnight (which I guess is possible). I really need to map these out on a big sheet of butcher paper or something one of these days.--Hardvice (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2007 (EST)

AOTW

I thought this deserved some recognition, thanks to all the hard work you guys put into it. ---- 01:39, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure it's ready for AOTW status yet. It still looks messy and is not properly linked. For me, this has just been a "brain dump" area where I just quickly jot down an idea of when something happened. It still needs links and elaboration. And I think we're still figuring out some of the dates. I would wait to put this as an AOTW.

I think a better choice for AOTW is Wireless, Part 3. I believe they've been coming out around 3 am EST on Tuesday morning. Let's wait until the morning to see. And if it doesn't come this week, I would go with another article. Hiro would be a good choice, what with the Golden Globes and all. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2007 (EST)

OK, I'll revert it back to GN:Wp2 for now, and if not GN:Wp3; then Hiro. ---- 01:45, 9 January 2007 (EST)

Timeline mess-up

• I think the writer's of the show made a mistake in the timeline. If going by the timeline we have here (which is fairly accurate) then Godsend (which takes place two weeks after Fallout) would take place on October 26. Yet in Godsend, Ando makes reference to the bomb taking place three weeks from then. Three weeks after October 26 would not be November 8 but November 16. How do we fix this issue? FlyingMan 10:54, 28 January 2007 (EST)
  • We have to be careful with approximate dates. For instance, today is Sunday January 28th. If I say something will happen in two weeks, I might mean Sunday February 11th, or somewhere near that date. I could mean February 9th, for instance, or I could mean Valentine's Day. I don't know if we have an exact date for the events in Godsend - But it's definitely somewhere around October 26th. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2007 (EST)

We really need to update the timeline

It hasn't been since Fallout! Heroe 23:10, 31 January 2007 (EST)

• I think it could also use some re-organization. Some dates have sources, others don't. It just looks kind of messy. Any thoughts? --Parlemer 16:19, 27 February 2007 (EST)
  • Yeah, I plan to really take this page apart this week ... hopefully. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2007 (EST)
• Part of the problem is that the date hasn't been confirmed since Fallout.--Hardvice (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Claire's birthdate

I've changed the article's listing of Claire's birthmonth from "October or November" (1990) to August 1990.

Known references to Claire's age/birthdate include the following:

1. The Fix - In this episode, the newspaper article on the fire is dated February 28, 1992. It mentions that Meredith Gordon's baby was 18 months old at the time. Counting back, this leads to an approximate birthmonth of August 1990.

2. In another episode, Claire says that she is nearly 16. This episode has been inferred to take place in October 2006. Hence, Claire's age seems to be 15 at this time, suggesting that her birthday must be after October 1, 1990.

3. Run! - In this episode, Meredith Gordon tells Nathan that their daughter is now 16. The inferred timeframe for this episode is between October and November 2006.

4. Claire's MySpace page - This gives Claire's age as 18, and her astrological sign as Leo. Leo maps to July 23-August 22 (based on Western astrology).

5. NBC.com/Heroes site - In a character profile, Claire was said to be a 17-year-old. A yearbook with pictures of Claire was labelled "Class of 2008". This character profile has since been replaced.

Giving aired television episodes highest canonicity, then there are 2 citations (#1 and #3 above) for Claire's being 16, and 1 reference to her being 15-almost-16 (#2). The in-story sources of the information (the newspaper, Meredith and Claire) would all seem pretty credible on the subject such that none of them can be easily discounted.

One "no-prize" explanation that can reconcile both claims is for Claire to have been born in August 1990 (making her 18 months at the time of the fire), but upon adoption by the Bennets was "given" a new birthday that was a few months later (say November 1990), perhaps to mask her true identity. Hence, at the time of #2, Claire could have believed she was born in late 1990 and was not yet 16, when in fact she had already turned 16 a few months before (which Meredith knew well). The fake birthday would have been another of the untruths about her life before that fateful homecoming night.

(It is also possible that Claire turned 16 sometime in October between references #2 and #3, and that either the birthday wasn't celebrated or a celebration happened "off-panel". But #1 would still not be satisfied. So this doesn't seem feasible to me.)

An August birthmonth is also (slightly/somewhat) supported by the MySpace detail of Claire being a Leo. Although the same site gives a clearly-too-old age of 18, I personally think the choice of astrological sign would less likely have been pulled out of thin air. Another problem with accepting Leo from MySpace as a confirmer of an August birth for Claire is it would seem to mean that she was aware of her "true" birthmonth contrary to my no-prize theory above.

--Mercury McKinnon 07:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

• Responses:
  1. The Odessa Register also reported two living people as dead, so I don't think Roxana Castillo had all her facts correct. Besides, it's not unreasonable for a child who is 20 or 21 months old to be called "a year and a half". Roxana may have gotten that report and called Claire 18 months old.
     • That's not enough reason to assume that the newspaper article was wrong on details about everything else. Ages are easily verifiable in many records/documents separate from the fire. The number of casualties in a fire is based on the incident itself, so being wrong about that is relatively understandable. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  2. I think Claire knows how old she is. If she says "almost 16", then she's almost 16.
     • But Claire has canonically stated that nothing she knew about her past was true. It need not be absolutely literal, but it certainly casts doubt on her own knowledge of her origins. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  3. I wouldn't trust the age an estranged mother of gives. Besides, a person who is almost 16 could be called 16. A person who is 16 would not be described as "almost 16".
     • I disagree that whether a mother is "estranged" or not would make a difference in knowing when she gave birth. Even more than the child, who has no personal memory of the date of their own birth, the mother is the one that has actual first-hand knowledge. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  4. I don't give any credit to her MySpace page. It's not canon, and I don't know who maintains it. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
     • If you'll review my argument, I don't give credit to it either. I was counting 2 canonical sources saying 16, vs. 1 canon source saying almost-16. August is strongly supported by a canon source. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  5. NBC.com has a long history of being wrong.
     • August is not based on this site either. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
• The way I see it, there's a few canonical references, but only one reliable one: Claire saying she's almost 16.
  • Only one reliable one??? Claire's knowledge about herself/her origins is arguably even less reliable as she herself has lamented on-screen. At the very least, Claire's credibility is no more than the newspaper or Meredith, as it's unreasonable/a big stretch to assume that these other 2 sources would have their facts wrong (as I've responded above). Storywise, the whole point of finding the newspaper and Meredith being brought into the story was for Claire to discover the truth about her origins and to correct the lack/fallibility of her own knowledge.
  • Still even if we assign none of the 3 sources (subjective) preference, there are objectively 2 canon sources saying 16 against 1 saying almost-16. --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
• If it's October (specifically, 2 weeks after October 12, 2006), then she was either born in October or November.... but because it's still ambiguous, let's just take the month off altogether. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
• I've got to agree. As far as I see it, Claire's the only reliable source that can't be reconciled as rounding error or factual error. If my kid were 15 years and 350-or-so days, I'd call them sixteen. She would probably call herself almost sixteen, because birthdays are important to kids. I see Claire's and Meredith's statements as consistent, and the newspaper as close enough. The MySpace and NBC.com aren't even worth reconciling.--Hardvice (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I don't like that so many non-canonical source contradict each other, but we have to go with what's on screen, and what's reliable. In the end (and I know it's been said before), but someone who is 16 could be described as "16", but not "almost 16". Someone who is 15 and very close to 16 could be described as "16" or "almost 16". — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Again, I have to say that Claire's knowledge about her origins has been strongly questioned in canon. The assumptions that Meredith or the newspaper would be wrong (as to the details of the baby's birth/age) are not based in canon statements.
    • I'm confused that the standard on what's considered canon seems to be applied inconsistently. It is clearly stated that aired episodes are the highest canon. The "best/closest fit" (the simplest explanation that would satisfy all 3 claims from canon) is that Claire was born in August 1990; this way, all 3 claims are explained reasonably/by no big stretch. So why not go with that? --Mercury McKinnon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
      • ...Because ultimately, it's speculating as to who is more correct. There's a lot still unknown. You're right, Claire could be have been lied to about the month she was born. But Meredith could have forgotten her daughter's birthday after a decade and a half (I know my parents forget mine all the time). In the end, it's speculative to definitively say when she was born one way or the other without contradicting another source. Plus, we're talking about a few months here, not years. She's either 16 or about to turn 16, and that's really what matters. As for the actual month, oh well, we'll leave it off the page for now. Maybe in the next episode if we're lucky she'll celebrate a birthday or tell about a birthday party she had. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
        • Hi. I just have to reiterate what I said above that there is no need to be subjective (or to "[speculate] as to who is more correct", as you say). We can take the canonicity of the statements as equal (all 3 made it into the aired script). But since there are 2 canon references that Claire is already 16 to only 1 that she isn't, it can be said that, objectively, an age of 16 has more support and (IMO) deserves mention on the face of the entry. The exception statement can also be included as a note. Moreover, it's inconsistent to mention under February 28, 1992 that bit about the alleged ages of Meredith and her baby, and accordingly reckon 1971 as Meredith's birth, but not August 1990 for Claire. --Mercury McKinnon 06:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
          • Actually, not all canon sources should be considered equal. For the exact reasons you listed above, there are (or could be) flaws in characters' memories and facts gathered by the reporter. We have no idea if Mr. Bennet lied to Claire, etc., and so we can't say, "Well, most of the sources agree it's August, therefore it's August." As much as one could argue for August another can argue against it--so it's best to leave it off until we get something more definitive. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
            • Hi. If you accept that "not all canon sources should be considered equal" then Claire's claim is weakest, being the one actually questioned in canon itself. Again, in contrast, there are no canon statements to assume that Meredith (or the newspaper) is wrong; in fact, it's a stretch to posit that Meredith is more likely wrong than right. Again, further, even from a storytelling/writing perspective, as plot points weren't Meredith and the newspaper precisely brought in to progress Claire from false knowledge to the truth about her origins? --Mercury McKinnon 07:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
            • As for numbers (2-vs.-1) counting for something, I thought "preponderance of evidence" was a commonly-known standard of persuasion. Paraphrasing, if we give equal weight to the 3 canon statements, it's more probable than not that the majority proposition is true. --Mercury McKinnon 07:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
              • Fortunately, we're not Wikipedia. 2 out of 3 statements pointing to one idea does not make it correct. As much as one would argue that the newspaper and Claire's mom are correct, I would argue that Claire is correct. But it's silly to have that debate since we just don't know who is correct. It's still speculation. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
                • Um, preponderance of evidence is not a Wikipedia concept. Actually, it's a basic, common-sense principle for making a ruling on which position is "more probably correct" where there's conflicting info. Anyhow... just to be overtly clear, I am NOT saying that "since one position is stronger, this the reason why it should be the ONLY one stated in the article." (Again, I want all sourced positions in there.) I was just explaining how numbers/volume of evidence/supporting statements is a widely-used principle since you and Hardvice seemed to be questioning it.
                  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Ryan realizes "preponderance of the evidence" is not a Wikipedia concept. Of course, you did link to a WP policy page, so perhaps you can see how saying we're not Wikipedia fits in. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have a policy about using the preponderance of the evidence to make judgment calls. We have a policy of confining speculation to appropriate articles and sections. We're not questioning the idea that POE is a valid standard -- we're questioning whether or not it can make a speculative statement magically non-speculative. And Ryan's 100% correct: POE doesn't factor in because it's still speculation, no matter how many sources say it, because there is an unresolved conflict with another canon source.--Hardvice (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • You're quite mistaken. Where have I linked to a Wikipedia policy page? --Mercury McKinnon 13:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                      • You're right; you didn't. I saw the interwiki link and assumed that's what it was. Being a lawyer, I didn't feel the need to read some cringeworthy malformed wikitext on POE, so I didn't click it, particularly when it clearly doesn't affect the outcome in the slightest: no matter how overwhelming the evidence in favor of one date, it still cannot be reconciled with other canon sources. This requires that one canon source be wrong, and it's necessarily speculation as to which one. I'm sorry I didn't feel like spending even more time on an irrelevant tangent from a non-issue. My bad.--Hardvice (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • While you're at it, where have I said that we should apply Wikipedia standards here? And where have I said that because of Preponderance of Evidence we should be selective on what canononical/sourced positions to include? Come on, guys. --Mercury McKinnon 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
          • I would be hesitant to say that we should give preference to one set of conflicting canon statements merely because there are more of them. That's as much or more of a value judgment as weighing the likelihood that any of them is likely to be incorrect. In retrospect, the current approach is the safest: we note all of the canon statements without actually endorsing any of them. To do otherwise, no matter how it's done or what weight is given to what, is speculation. Where there are conflicting canon statements, none of which can be rejected without supposition, there's no "more correct" answer.--Hardvice (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
            • Despite my personal position that August 1990 is "more correct" (better fits the evidence) on this Talk page, I have never edited the article to state such a preference. As I've said previously, I too am for the inclusion of all statements in canon (and even deuterocanonical/secondary sources) on Claire's age/birthdate in the Wiki. Hardvice, if I understand you correctly then you now agree that, despite ambiguity, all canon statements ought to be included in the article for the Wiki's completeness (as record of all things Heroes). Hence, August 1990 --or any other canonically-supportable date-- should not be removed from the entry; I'll put it back in. --Mercury McKinnon 07:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
              • Just because you think it's better supported by by canon, I do not, and others do not either. In the end, there are conflicting statements, and it's still very much up for discussion. It should definitely not go on the page. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
              • Wow. You managed to take a statement saying that we shouldn't endorse any one position and use it to justify adding back in exactly what you like. That's an impressive leap of logic. Kudos. Let me be even more clear: we should include the fact that statements of Claire's age contradict. We should not include Claire's age based on any of the contradictory statements. We're not going to list her birthdate as "August or October or November" because that's just plain stupid. And we're certainly not going to list it as "around August" because that just plain ignores that the statements conflict.--Hardvice (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
                • Whoa! I feared this is what you'd think. What ever happened to a cardinal rule of wikis: assuming good faith/giving benefit of the doubt to editors? I have been very upfront with all my statements. I'll quote myself. "August 1990 --or any other canonically-supportable date-- should not be removed from the entry. And I meant exactly that. I am for the inclusion of ALL the statements in the entry. This is the third time I've said that now. Where was I unclear?
                • If you must know, I wanted to explicitly state in my last Talk (when I added back August 1990) that I personally had no knowledge of canon support for "October/November 1990" (as opposed to December 1990 or January 1991, and so on) as a specific birthdate for Claire. (I have stated in my very first discussion post ALL the sourced references to Claire's age that I am aware of.) This is the simple reason why I have not placed back "October/November 1990". I asked myself: Do I have to state that 'I leave it to others more knowledgeable to post October/November 1990 and other possible dates?' I thought it sounded too patronizing (as it underestimates other editors by being so unsubtle) and opted not to say that in my reply. I had already clearly stated (I thought) that despite my personal position I am not pushing any endorsement in the article text. I thought people would believe my stated intent.
                • Hardvice, to address your comments. If a canon statement is acceptable to place in the wiki, then are you also saying that an editor must ensure that in a single revision he should undertake to mention all canon statements??? In my mind, that's an unfeasible and unrealistic expectation. A Wiki is built up on many small edits, and is a continuing work-in-progress. It's unreasonable to burden a single editor that the one edit he makes should be complete/final that it does not need to be improved by subsequent edits. Accordingly, isn't the proper reaction for an editor in good faith not to remove correct material, but to add missing parts? I have already suggested that the entry requires a section discussing problems with the timeline, including obviously Claire's birthdate.
                • Ryangibsonstewart, can't you just add arguments for "October/November/around Halloween" yourself? I ask you to do this since I am personally unaware of the canon support for that. (Asking that is so unsubtle, but I fear if I don't overstate it, I'll be misunderstood again.)
                  • I believe I've done that already on this page more than once, and on other pages time and time again. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • I've read those, over and over again, thanks. Sorry, none of them at all answers the question, which is (if you've read carefully) why October or November 1990 --and specifically "around Halloween"-- are singled out over December 1990, January 1991, February 1991, etc. "Almost 16" fits these others as well. So, if you're able, please enlighten me on what additional source rules out December 1990, etc. Thanks. --Mercury McKinnon 13:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                      • I'm not really in the mood to talk about this anymore. We don't know when she was born, end of story. I'll send her a birthday present in January with a "Happy Belated Birthday" card. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                        • That's OK. Evidently, the "October/November" birth-month that was originally in the timeline isn't well-founded. I've since removed it from Claire's article too. --Mercury McKinnon 13:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
                • I am quite hurt and saddened by the accusation that I made a faulty and self-serving leap of logic. I think it's evident that I wouldn't have taken the effort to discuss here if I weren't editing this Wiki in good faith. Seems to me, I am not the one who has jumped to a hasty mis-conclusion. Please reply. --Mercury McKinnon 04:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                  • What more can possibly be said about this non-issue at this point? No date can be confirmed; therefore, no date should appear outside of a Notes section. I'm sorry your feelings got all bent out of shape, but what I saw was (and what I still see is) my statement that no date can be confirmed used to justify adding a date, which I do not appreciate. In any case, the way I see it everything is completely correct in terms of the use of conflicting canon sources right now: Claire Bennet has a note section that discusses the conflicting sources, and this article has the only completely reliable date possible: the year. I am through discussing this. If you'd like to keep talking, please feel free to do so. You are also free, as always, to make whatever non-speculative edits you'd like, of course. I will continue to remove speculation from this and any other article.--Hardvice (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • Thanks. But can you (or someone) please address my points more constructively. I did not make a speculative edit (August 1990 is not speculative; incomplete but not speculative). I'm afraid ample time/opportunity wasn't given to allow others to build on the information. As differentiated from patently wrong edits which I understand ought to be removed/corrected soonest, shouldn't there be a larger window of time for partial/in-process edits before someone takes them out? I think some guidance on this is only fair. I wouldn't mind making the 'Timeline Problems' section myself but it's a large discussion and I can't do it in one go (I'm still waiting for someone to enlighten me on Oct/Nov). --Mercury McKinnon 05:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
                    • I feel like this is about the tenth time I've said this, but here goes again: since canon statements (Claire's and Meredith's and the newspaper) conflict, there is no canon month for Claire's birthdate. Including any or all of the months is necessarily speculation--whether it's a "partial edit", whether it lists all three months, or whether it's got animated gifs of dancing leprechauns next to it. She can't be born "August to November". She has a definite birth month, we just don't (and can't) know it. There's nothing you can add to "around August" that will make it not speculation, so it was removed. It's not an "in progress edit"--even if it's incomplete, it's incomplete speculation. Multiple conflicting canon sources is like having no canon source: it's fine to discuss it in Notes, but it doesn't belong in the article. I realize Help:Sources doesn't directly address conflicting canon sources, since this is the first time it's happened, so I'll rectify that. I personally couldn't care an iota less when Claire was born, but I do care when non-standard speculative information (which any birthdate is at present) is added outside of the Notes section of an article. It just doesn't belong, and barring some miraculous retcon on the part of the show (Claire has an on-screen birthday party; Meredith shows up and says "Oh, I forgot you were born in October!" or Claire finds her real birth certificate and says "whoops, I guess I'm a month older than I thought"), never will. As for the October/November side, I can't help you, because I don't care when Claire's birthday is enough to know how this was figured from her statement that she's "almost sixteen". Nevertheless, "almost sixteen" precludes August, so the statements are in conflict.--Hardvice (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
        • In any case, I think there really needs to be sections in the article that discuss (a) how the dates in the chronology were reckoned (maybe a Notes and References), and (b) problems/inconsistencies in the timeline. --Mercury McKinnon 06:29, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Edit War

Because there are conflicting canon sources, the date should be left off. Saying "around August" gives preference over statements that disagree. I could just as easily put "around October or November" and have the same reasoning, but giving preference to another statement. The date needs to be left off altogether until something more concrete is given onscreen. If somebody is truly interested in what month Claire was born, it is here on the discussion page, and numerous other discussion pages. And precisely because it is still a discussion, it should not be on the main page at all. In the end, I'm really in no mood to have an edit war; that just seems counterproductive to me. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

• Particularly over something so trivial. I just can't see anybody coming to this site because they're dying to read a detailed analysis of what Claire's age might be. Including the conflicting statements in her article and the year in this article is more than sufficient for now. On the other hand, speculation is speculation and shouldn't be treated as fact, no matter how trivial.--Hardvice (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • "Particularly over something so trivial." Care to define what is "too trivial" for this wiki?  ;) Ages, precise birthdays of main characters... if you already find these things trivial, there are certainly details on this wiki far more trivial than these. In my experience, a fan-assembled timeline is only as good as how well the explanation of how it was reckoned holds up. (Isn't this precisely the point of requiring sources/references for anything?) I do agree that a more detailed discussion can either be in the character page or the timeline page, but disagree that it should be just left on the Talk page. --Mercury McKinnon 06:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Sure. What's "too trivial" is not the age, or any other detail. It's feeling the need to write pages and pages supporting one measly edit that will never, ever, ever be anything but speculation, no matter how you word it. Again, we can have a complete treatise on the Problems of Claire's Age in a Notes section. But barring a miracle, we can't have an age, or a month on the timeline, without resorting to either over- or under-inclusive speculation. She has a birthmonth, so listing her as "around August" or "August through November" is speculative and over-inclusive. Listing her as "August" or "October" or "November" is speculative and underinclusive. Claire's Birthday: Serious Fucking Business.--Hardvice (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
• This article is definitely a tough one. The show is not extremely forthcoming with dates so a lot of it comes down to analyzing a number of different statements and events in order to try to determine when something happened. It's also entirely possible that conflicts may arise simply because the writers are not hugely concerned with the precise date that most things happened at this point. When they do come up with a date they may not even remember hints they had made earlier or conclusions that could already have been made based on pieces of info they had provided earlier. We just need to accept that the info here is often an approximation. If we can't figure out exactly when something happened, let's just approximate it as reliably as we can... which just means trying to pin it down to a particular year if possible. I think the article already serves a great purpose in laying out a basic timeline so anytime we can reliably pin an event to a particular date based on explicit information that's gravy. (Admin 13:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT))
• Hi. I wasn't warring. Please see my clarifications in the section above. Thanks. --Mercury McKinnon 04:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirects?

Now that redirects to sections are possible, we can take advantage of Wiki's date format support. We'd need to add a redirect page for each date on the timeline and redirect it to the proper section, but it means we could link, say [[October 2, 2006]], have it jump to the correct section of the timeline, and have the link display according to the user's preferences. The only problem is that we'd have to make the section headings year-specific (i.e. ===October 2, 2006=== instead of ===October 2=== under ==2006==. We could even use self-links to make the dates appear in a user's preferred format on this page, except that they'd appear as links but wouldn't go anywhere. It's a lot of work for not a lot of benefit, but the inconsistent date formats (October 2, 2006 vs. 2 October 2006) used throughout the site are starting to bug me. Ideas?--Hardvice (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

• Wow, Grand Mother Theresa ... whatever ... that was on my list of things to do during the hiatus. I really don't like the way this page is set up right now. The TOC looks like crap and the H3, H4, and H5 get really ugly. I think for anything pre-2006, we should just use the year, and the date should be bolded, not subheaded.

===1944===
* Hana's grandmother...
===1945===
* August 6: Hiro's grandfather...

For all dates in/after 2006, the heading should just be the date

===2006===
====October 3====
* Peter whines...
====October 4====
* Nathan is a slut...

I'm only counting 12 October dates right now. It would really be a good idea to have two redirects to each of those sections, then: "October 2" and "October 2, 2006" both redirect to the same section. Or we could take care of the problem by using span ids.

All episode references should be removed from the dates. I wouldn't be opposed to putting parenthetical cites on the events (or at least some of them).

Let's start with that and go from there. Whaddya think? — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

• We're also to the point where we really need to document the events of the last few episodes. We don't know the exact date, but we know Godsend is "two weeks later". Maybe for all other dates past then, we could put "Godsend +1", or "One day after Godsend". We really should put something. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

• I have a sneaking suspicion we're going to end up counting backwards from the explosion in the long run. But yes, for now the best we can do is count up from Godsend. --Hardvice (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

• In terms of cleanup to this page, I like it. In terms of standardizing the dates, it doesn't do much. BUT we can combine the two by using name anchors like we do on Theories:People instead of section headings. The redirects will still work, which means we can change, say, Jackie's death date to [[October 11, 2006]]. It will link to the anchor properly, and users who have their preference set for British/military style dates will see it as "11 October 2006".--Hardvice (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

• I see what you're saying ... Right, you've got a good point. I'm just blinded by how messy this page is. :) — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

• I agree, this page needs major formating, and it's a good hiatus project. We also have the opportunity to use it to clean up the inconsistent date formating throughout the site and add functionality. I like it.--Hardvice (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Chandra's death

This article used to say Chandra's death was on September 29th. Now it says September 28th. The death date listed on Chandra Suresh is September 26th. I'm a little ignorant--can somebody fill me in on what is the correct date and how we figure that out. I suppose I could do the math and the research, but there are others here who already know the answer, so I may as well use my resources. Thanks! — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi. I was the one who changed it to September 28th. The date can be reckoned from Don't Look Back, where Mohinder tells Eden that his father had been killed 4 days ago. Don't Look Back takes place October 2, as given in the Odessa Register that reported the train wreck and Claire's anonymous rescue. (I also included this explanation as a comment within the article, and hope the same is done for all the inferred dates.) --Mercury McKinnon 10:44, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Right, I'm not debating the date. That makes a lot of sense, and I like the reasoning you included. I'm just wondering where the other dates came from ... and the one on Chandra's infobox needs to be fixed. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I overlooked to update Chandra's article. Actually, previous to my edit the Timeline gave Chandra's death as September 27-28, and Mohinder's being informed of this (his first appearance in Genesis) as September 29. My speculation on where the other dates came from: September 27-28 may have come from the flashback to Chandra's death being a night scene and/or the time difference between New York and India (about 10 hours), from either of which a case could be made that Chandra may have been killed late in the evening (EDT) of September 27. September 29 probably came from incorrectly thinking that "31 days hath September", resulting in a miscalculation of the "3 days ago" bit in Genesis. As for September 26, this may have come from Mohinder telling Nirand that he had last spoken to his dad "2 days ago", when Chandra expressed that someone was after him/his research. (Phew. And I need to add that last date to the timeline next.) --Mercury McKinnon 11:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)