Talk:Timeline (RDM)/Archive5

6 months?, Duration of Home, Part I, Roslin's life expectancy after "Epiphanies", When is the Presidential Election?, Timing of Events of Black Market and later episodes, The Ten Weeks thing in "Downloaded", Flight Of The Phoenix Chronology Note, Fine Tuning "Black Market" Through "Lay Down Your Burdens, Part I"

Archive 3 (March 22nd, 2006 to November 19th, 2006):

Timeline Image, Days v. Day, Dating "The Captain's Hand", Future Events, "Circa:" the enemy of all anal historians

Archive 4 (November 19th, 2006 to February 27th, 2007):

Timeline Image, the Colonial calender, The Hero Continuity Discrepency, Unfinished Business, Justification of the change of the timeline, Episode timeline slight adjustment, Major Cleanup Needed, I propose to shift "Lay Down Your Burdens Parts I & II" over about 10 days., Another Colonial Date in "Precipice", Split Idea, Ancient history

Adama meeting Saul

Adama and Saul have said on several occasions that they've known each other for 30 years. Why does this article say they met 20 years before the attacks? Shouldn't it be 30? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zethon (talk • contribs).

According to Bradley Thompson he is exaggerating, and it's closer to 23 years. Maybe a note about that would help. --Serenity 05:20, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Definitely note it. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 16:35, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Already did so :) --Serenity 16:42, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

"Hero" Timeline Issues, revisited

The alterations to the established timeline made in "Hero" continue to be problematic, and have allowed portions of Galen Tyrol and Felix Gaeta's articles to be contaminated with what I consider to be fancruft.

To review: All materials prior to "Hero", as well as Adama's Dossier from that episode, indicate that Adama had served on Galactica for several years:

Gaeta: "And may I also take this opportunity to say it's been both a pleasure and an honor to serve under you these past three years." (Miniseries)
Tyrol: "Sir, on behalf of Deck Crew Five I'd like to present a token of our esteem and appreciation for the many years you've served as commanding officer of this ship." (Miniseries)
Adama: "Chief Tyrol's been under my command for over five years" (Litmus)

No indication is made that either Gaeta or Tyrol served under him on any other ship than Galactica. In fact, when listing the ships he's served on in the past, Tyrol fails to mention Valkyrie:

Tyrol: I've served on battlestars since I was 18 years old. The Pegasus, Columbia, Atlantia, Galactica-- (Resistance).

In real-world militaries, it would be quite remarkable for lower-ranked officers like Gaeta and NCOs like Tyrol to transfer from ship to ship with their commander. The long-running team of Tigh and Adama is remarkable as it is.

The timeline provided by Adama's Dossier fits very well with the information above, placing his service on Valkyrie from -9 to -6 years BCH, and his service on Galactica from -6 to 0 years BCH. This is enough time for both Tyrol and Gaeta to have served with him for five and three years respectively, on Galactica, and enough time that Tyol's comment about the "many years you've served as commanding officer of this ship" makes sense.

Problems ensue when we try to take the dialogue from "Hero" into account:

Adama: "That's right. He's one of mine. Disappeared about three years ago. We think that he was captured."
Novacek: "Well, sir, it's like this. The enemy had me locked in a cell for three years."
Roslin: "About a year prior to the Cylon attack on the Colonies, you were on a mission with Admiral Adama. Is that correct?"
Thrace: "Novacek was held on a baseship for three years[...]"

All this indicates that Adama was transferred to Galactica on -1 BCH, which demands that (a) Tyrol and Gaeta served with him on Valkyrie and transferred with him to Galactica, and (b) completely invalidates Tyrol's statement from the Miniseries about Adama's lengthy command of Galactica.

My preference here is to simply throw out the dialogue from "Hero", and put Bulldog's aborted mission at -6 BCH - "three years ago" should be changed to "eight years ago", and "about a year prior to the Cylon attack" should be changed to "about six years prior...". Where relevant, the contradiction should be footnoted.

The alternative, attempting to reconcile Gaeta and Tyrol's backstory with Adama's, is impossible, and should not be attempted. --Peter Farago 16:15, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I couldn't agree more. Finally someone points that out. Usually I don't take printed documents like that at face value, because there are small errors in a few them. But as you said, other evidence always indicated that Adama served on Galactica for a few years. Not just Tyrol's very explicit line, but also how others like Gaeta and Kelly act around him. "Hero" messed that up, but I always chose to see it as an error in dialogue. For me it makes more sense to place the Stealthstar mission at maybe 8 years or so before the series. Thinking that Tyrol (and Gaeta!) followed him from Valkyrie to Galactica just complicates things unnecessarily. It's beyond me why the more silly way was chosen. --Serenity 16:23, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

It's clearly a mistake by the writers, but I'm skeptical about us choosing new dates for events as opposed to those established (however misguidedly) onscreen, this seems like just another form of fancruft. As Mr. Farago states, it is impossible to reconcile without delving into fancruft territory, so how about we just "teach the controversy", adding short notes and linking to an article explaining the discontinuity. My personal opinion is that Adama's Dossier, with its two seconds of screentime, was not intended to have been taken as seriously as we tend to do here, it having been just produced quickly by the art department, without significant guidance from the executive producers.OTW 18:43, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Frankly, the contradictions should be noted. I agree to "teaching the controversy", as OTW suggested, noting the discrepancies in the appropriate articles. "Hero" is a big error when looking at the overall picture, but one that we can't ignore by simply "throwing out the dialogue", which is like throwing out the baby with the used bathwater. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New} 19:55, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

I'd normally agree. It seems absurd to let a prop visible for two minutes overrule four lines of episode dialogue, and our continuity policy, which I personally promulgated, favors newer content over older in the face of conflicting evidence. I'm loathe to make an exception, since that leads to a slippery slope, but I feel like we can get away with it here for a couple reasons:

In addition to the dossier, there are at least five episodes corroborating the earlier version, vs. just Hero in favor of the later version.
The early version is integral to Tyrol's backstory and can't be reconciled with the later version.
As a "one-off" not connected to the overall story arc, it seems unlikely that Novacek or the events of "Hero" will be referenced again.

In light of this, I feel comfortable making the Miniseries/Litmus/Resistance/Dossier (and, as I noted some time ago in Talk:Hero/Archive1#Possible_Discontinuity, "Act of Contrition" and "The Farm") consensus the "official" version, and footnoting the "Hero" version. If necessary, a separate page explaining the particular continuity glitch and our policy to it could be drafted and linked. --Peter Farago 01:22, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

That seems about right, how about this compromise: In articles relating to Hero we use the "Hero version", footnoting the "official version" and then in the rest of the wiki do the opposite. If Battlestar Galactica isn't entirely self-consistent, Battestar wiki doesn't need to be either. We know that RDM values a lot of things above continuity. OTW 04:40, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Sad, but true. That said, we have the opportunity to consistently document inconsistencies. While RDM is more bound to his muse and to storytelling, I say we throw in our lot with accuracy, consistency, and concision (anf if things occasionally get a little foot-notey we can live with it). --Steelviper 05:29, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

It's infinitely more absurd to assume that both Tyrol and Gaeta followed him to Galactica. I cringe every time I read that somewhere. But it's not just about his dossier. Dialogue in the Miniseries heavily implied, if not established, that he served on Galactica for several years. Then there are several dates in other episodes. I really don't understand this rule that there can't possibly be an error in dialogue. This isn't the only case where things were bent around so that the dialogue can stay as it is. Yeah, the prop/art department has made some errors in the past, and ones that can easily be ignored, but this is a case were their stuff fits (though I agree that it's taken a bit too seriously now and then) and the writers contradicted their own work. Usually people throw up their arms at the slightest hint of fanwanking and then something like this gets approved by everyone...

As for the "Hero" page. We can leave the "three years" in the summary and then explain the error in Analysis. All other pages use "eight years" with a footnote for the explanation and maybe a link to that section. --Serenity 05:53, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

The pages Daniel Novacek, Valkyrie, Stealthstar, Corman and Armistice Line currently are, and should remain, corresponding primarily to the 'hero timeline' as their information is almost entirely derived from Hero. The question is, do articles such as William Adama assume his tenure on Valkyrie happened 6 BCH (which makes big assumptions about the state of the Cylons, and also means that the Stealthstar incident occurred before' humaniod cylons were violating the line) or kinda pretend it didn't happen at all? We could make the text deliberately vague about the actual timeline and then add: "There are conflicting sources on how long Adama spent on Galactica before the Cylon Holocaust, see Hero timeline discontinuity" or similar notes where relevant in the main text to make it clear. OTW 09:00, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

I don't see the problem in moving the date and footnoting it, explaining that we chose to ignore the date given in "Hero" in favor of a lot of other onscreen evidence. If we kept the "three years" in the main text, we'd need to make a footnote anyways to stay consistent. So there is not much of a difference either way. The Valkyrie page in particular needs to be changed because it says that Tyrol and Gaeta served there with Adama.

Moreover, moving "Hero" a few years earlier actually gives Adama's doubts about his role in the conflict more weight. --Serenity 09:20, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

This sounds good to me, OTW. --Peter Farago 10:18, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Good to see someone bringing this up. I to have been cringing every time I read that Tyrol and Gaeta came with Adama from the Valkyrie as a way of reconcilling that. It just doesn't happen in the militaries that RDM and Co. use for inspiration. I like OTW's idea, that would work pretty well, as long as we cleary spell out the differences, maybe include a link to a section of the Hero or Timeline page that deals with it. --Talos 13:30, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Vote

Ok, there are several possibilities on how to address this. Maybe we should just vote instead of having a long discussion. There are two sections 1/2 and a/b which complement each other. One is what to write, the other is how. So vote on 1 or 2 and a or b.

Option 1

Leave the dates as they are and just note the discrepancy in a footnote and either option a or b.

Option 2

Change the dates (except in the "Hero" summary) on pages like this one, William Adama, Daniel Novacek, Stealthstar and Valkyrie to 6BCH/"eight years ago" as per the dossier and earlier dialogue evidence, thus considering "Hero" dialogue an error. Then footnote that as per option a or b to explain that decision.

Support As said, I don't think it's in any way logical to accept dialogue just because it came later even though it's clearly wrong. We don't just go by a 2-second prop, but by earlier dialogue as well. If you disagree, I think option 1 is a fair alternative that preserves some of the status quo. --Serenity 16:20, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
Support Serenity said it all, don't have anything to add here but that I agree. --Talos 16:35, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
Support Just because the show is inconsistent doesn't mean that we he have to be. As long as we document our assumptions clearly (so that the reader knows exactly what info is coming from where) I don't think it's misleading or too presumptive. The alternative is a set of pages that says "A", a set of pages that says "not A", and then a bunch of footnotes pointing to the discrepancies. It reads smoother just to say "A" (or "not A") and then note the particular places that didn't jive. --Steelviper 23:04, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
Support I agree with Steelviper that we should try to keep as much intra-article consistency as possible. Since there are two versions of the timeline, we mention the most logical one (6BCH) in the article body, while noting the alternative (1BCH) in a footnote. If we run into any new timeline discontinuities, we should act in the same way. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:10, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Option a

Create an own page similar to Season two timeline discontinuity which contains an explanation with earlier dialogue evidence and can be linked to. This prevents lengthy and duplicate footnotes on every page.

Option b

Put a section at the beginning of Hero#Analysis which can be linked to. Also prevents duplicate footnotes

Support I think this is the easiest solution. I'm against an own article as the issue is relatively small and can easily be explained in the episode article. --Serenity 16:20, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
Support Agreed, this would be easiest and the least intrusive way of doing this. --Talos 16:36, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
Support Simpler is better. A discontinuity article is going to have very low visibility (in terms of being searched/accessed). A footnote in a higher visibility article gives the information a wider audience, and it is easier to find (so long as the footnote is located within a logical article). --Steelviper 22:59, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
- Comment I meant mainly where to store the overall information (in an own article or on the "Hero" page). I'd create a footnote behind every mention of the date. Like "While "Hero" places the date at 1 BCH, this conflicts with earlier dialogue. For a detailed analysis see..." --Serenity 06:49, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
Support Since this discontinuity isn't as big and doesn't span as many episodes as the S2 one does, it doesn't have to be in its own article. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:05, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

"Scattered" re-re-re-visted

Sorry to beat this dead horse again. Since we're now taking the dossier at face value, I've tried to change all dates to it. In general it fits, but it places Adama's reinstatement into the Fleet at 23 BCH and his assignment to Atlantia at 17 BCH. For the Tigh/Adama meeting we go by the podcast note that the meeting took place 20 years ago. Is there anything that says we have to take this literally and can't place it at 23 BCH? And then assume that Adama re-joined the Fleet in the same year? In fact the 23-year date is used on Carolanne Adama, so the timeline isn't consistent with our other articles.

And what's the source for placing Tigh's reinstatement two years later? I know this is mentioned in the Tigh article, but it's not directly from the episode I think. Going by the Saul Tigh footnotes, it seems to come solely from the BSG magazine. Also, as it is now, it doesn't make sense that Adama got assigned to Atlantia with the rank of major 11 BCH. Because we know that he's a major when he gets Tigh back into the Fleet.

We could change it to this:

23 BCH:
- Adama and Tigh meet
- Adama reinstated into the Fleet in the same year (so noted in dossier: 54-31=23)
17 BCH:
- Adama assigned to Atlantia makes his thousands landing (AoC), gets promoted to major
- Gets Tigh back into the fleet.

The only point I'm unsure is the time between Adama's and Tigh's reinstatement and the quoted two years. The dossier says "Major: Battlestar Atlantia". Maybe that means he was a major on Atlantia, not that he was promoted to the rank on it. --Serenity 09:21, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

The document is unfortunately only a short list of Adama's accomplishments in the fleet. It would seem to me, although I'm not certain, that the list is only comprehensive to the point of reassignments, not promotions. In the Navy, it is equally common for an officer to be promoted aboard ship as well as with reassignment, although for higher level positions (such as Commander and Captain), it is increasingly more likely to recieve promotion with reassignment. So I always assumed that Adama was recommissioned as a major, although there's not really any proof of that is there (which begs the question, what was he doing for those six years?). This episode is a continuity nightmare by the way.--OrionFour 14:59, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

He was recommissioned as captain and Viper pilot. That's said explicitly in a deleted scene from "Scattered". The dossier doesn't really contradict on screen information as such, as "Scattered" is pretty vague about dating. We have the "20 years" from the podcast, but that can easily be a rounded value. As said, the two years between Adama's and Tigh's reinstatement comes from the magazine I think, but we usually treat that as "valid until contradicted". So we could either extend that period to 6 years, or we could keep it as two years and assume that Adama got promoted earlier (at the moment I'm favoring that).

This probably comes down to simple choice unless someone recalls some more information. So we could decide on one, and footnote the alternative. Probably the best way. --Serenity 16:05, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

My reading is that Adama serves on the tramp freighter from -37 BCH to some point prior to -23 BCH (per the dossier). He meets Tigh in -28 BCH (per "Torn", in which Adama calls Tigh "The man that I've known for the past thirty years"). He is recomissioned in -23 BCH, rank unknown. Tigh is recomissioned in -21 BCH (two years later, per the magazine), by which point Adama holds the rank of major (per the cut scene in "Scattered"). The dossier entry for -17 BCH indicates his transfer to Atlantia, not a promotion. His thousandth landing (on Atlantia, per "Act of Contrition") must take place shortly afterwards.

We can date Adama's marriage to Carolanne as follows: Zak dies in -2 BCH (Miniseries). He probably graduated from some kind of military academy, which would make his age at least 22 following the U.S. model. That puts his birth at roughly -24 BCH. From Adama's photo with his two sons, Lee looks about two years older, putting his birth in -26 BCH.

So, I think everything makes perfect sense here. The flashbacks in "Scattered" span seven years from -28 BCH (Adama and Tigh's first meeting) to -21 BCH (Tigh's reinstatement). Adama's comment about meeting Tigh 30 years ago in Torn fits nicely. He probably married Carolanne in -26 BCH, at which point he would have quit his job on the freighter to start a family, and resumed military service three years later, when Zak was old enough to leave with one parent. The only date that has to be fudged is Moore's comment that the "Scattered" flashbacks take place 20 years ago, and this is both the most vague and least reliable piece of information that we have to consider. --Peter Farago 18:55, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

That sounds good :) I agree that we shouldn't necessarily take behind-the-scenes info over on-screen evidence. Though it can be made fit either way.

Two comments though: First, Adama's rank is known from a deleted scene. He starts as captain as well. Second, Adama didn't quit his job with marriage. When he gets the news that he is reinstated, Tigh states "the new wife pulled through". And the two are still on the freighter. The Adamas married while he was a freight monkey and then he joined the Fleet rightaway. --Serenity 01:29, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Nice analysis, all. If we take the "twenty years ago" as a vague statement that could also mean 23 years, Peter's reading fits pretty much perfectly (adjusting it for what Serenity pointed out above, of course). --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 05:57, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, right now we have the meeting at 28 years. We could also place it at 23 years and assume that Adama got recommissioned in the same year. Both versions work, but 28 years fits better with the line that they've known each other for 30 years. This part of the timeline isn't such a mess as some make it out to be. The only major reshuffling is the Valkyrie mission.

Also regarding Tyrol's "ten years" comment. That might be a rounded value - people often think in 10, 15, 20 years - so I put that as "circa". --Serenity 06:37, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Ancient History

4,000 years BCH: The Thirteenth Tribe reportedly leaves the planet Kobol, later leaving a beacon in space and building the Temple of Five (The Eye of Jupiter)[1]. At some undated point, something travels from Earth to Kobol, passing on information about Earth, including a map of its night sky.

This would be clearer if these 3 items were seperated. The virus on the beacon is an exact match of a virus reported 3000 years ago. This is a major clue in the series and should be given more importance as opposed to being mentioned in passing the way its written here. Also it need to be specified that the Temple is *radio carbon* dated to 4000 years.

Quote Adama to Roslin "According to Cottle, the virus was an exact match to one reported over 3000 years ago, right around the time that the 13th colony left Kobol"

Quote Tyrol to Adama "Our initial radio carbon dating suggests the temples at least 4000 years old which lines up with the exodus of the 13th tribe"

This is potentially confusing since the exodus of the 13th tribe is anything from 3000-4000 years ago (if 13th tribe and 13th colony are to taken as the same thing!). The virus itsself adds more confusion, since it was an exact match then the assumption is that its the same virus since a virus will mutate pretty fast but you would think that in space it is in suspended animation. Therefore its not entirely clear that this quote is saying the beacon is 3000 years old

Since the "undated" fact is undated, it should be moved outside of the timeline but still within the Ancient History section or preferentially removed entirely since it borders speculation.

I would suggest that it reads as follows...

4000 years BCH: The Temple of Five is built by the 13th tribe [1]
4000 - 3000 years BCH: The 13th tribe/colony leaves Kobol [1] [2]
After 3000 years BCH: The beacon is left behind by the 13th colony [2]

The [1], [2] points to the two quotes listed above.

Its not exactly clear in which order these occured but it represents the facts as we know them. It is very important that this timeline is listed as clearly as possible since it may well be one of the most crucial bits of information in the show. Although it is commonly assumed that the 13th tribe left Kobol, left a beacon and then built the temple it is not clear from these 2 quotes that this is the correct order of events. You can create other orders based on these quotes so I think its important that preconceptions aren't written into the description of events and the ordering of these events is left up to the reader - as the show intended. --Swozie 16:21, 4 January 2008 (CST)

How crucial it is depends on one's preferences. Mine are entirely elsewhere. Anyways, that's what footnotes are for. It's true that it should be left somewhat open, and it's a topic that was always unclear, but it has to be put in some order for the purpose of the article. Footnotes can give the sources and some explanation, so that the reader can decide what to make of it. They can't be too long, but 1-3 sentences are usually enough to convey the information. I changed it to make the beacon date more ambiguous, but that's said in the footnote. --Serenity 18:59, 4 January 2008 (CST)

12tribes leaving Kobol 2000 years ago is wrong...

Billy: Uh, well, we won't know for sure until they send a ground team but the initial estimates have it, uh, on the order of approximately 2,000 years. Elosha: That's around the time the 13 tribes first left Kobol. --Swozie 19:54, 5 January 2008 (CST)

There are many contradictory quotes on that one. There is a quote that says 2,000 years (you mentioned it), there is one that says 3,000 and one that says 4,000. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 03:57, 6 January 2008 (CST)

Its only a contradiction if you make the assumption that the 13th tribe left only once - also nobody has ever said that there was only ever 1 thirteeth colony. Although its never been stated, the modern day cylons themselves are obviously a 13th colony/tribe since they have their own homeworld.

Billy: Uh, well, we won't know for sure until they send a ground team but the initial estimates have it, uh, on the order of approximately 2,000 years. Elosha: That's around the time the 13 tribes first left Kobol.

Notice the use of the term "first", also 13 tribes left Kobol, they aren't neccessarily saying the the legendary "Thirteeth Tribe" was one of them.

Adama: Why the Scroll of Pythia? Roslin: Pythia is supposed to have chronicled the original journey of the 13th Tribe on its way to Earth.

Notice the use of the term "original" - if there was only one journey then this term would have no meaning and therefore would be pointless to include it.

Adama: According to Cottle, the virus was an exact match to one reported over 3000 years ago, right around the time that the 13th colony left Kobol"

Chief: Our initial radiocarbon dating suggests that the temple's at least 4,000 years old, which lines up with the exodus of the Thirteenth Tribe. --Swozie 07:43, 6 January 2008 (CST)

The 13th Tribe "first left Kobol" 2,000 years ago, but also left 3,000 and 4,000 years ago? Now that's a contradiction... --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 08:06, 6 January 2008 (CST)

Yep. There is a deliberate retcon or dialogue error somewhere; or both. It's possible to reconcile two of the three dates; for example by assuming that part of them left Kobol earlier to build the temple and that the rest left later with the other tribes. But the third will contradict each two you chose. Taking all the dialogue literally and reconciling all three dates is impossible without some serve mental contortions. --Serenity 08:31, 6 January 2008 (CST)

They don't say the 13th tribe left 2000 years ago, they say 13 tribes left. Sorry to keep banging on about the same point and to a certain extent I am inclined to believe its an error of some kind, more likely the history of the colonies has been changed by the writers before season 3 but I don't believe its a script error since Boomer says the same thing...

Boomer: I'm putting together a lot of pieces from a lot of sources beyond your scriptures. If I'm right, that's the spot where your god supposedly stood and watched Athena throw herself down onto the rocks below out of despair over the exodus of the 13 tribes.

Even at that point in the series it was clear that the exodus of 13 tribes resulted in 12 colonies (on Kobol pre miniseries, later changed to 12 planets). So the writers knew that there were 12 colonies and yet twice they say 13 tribes left Kobol. --Swozie 07:15, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Well, with the first twelve populating the colonies, and the 13th going in their own direction. The (legendary) 13th tribe was one of the tribes. The only reason they're legendary (and not just a plain old tribe) is that they went in a different direction and the rest of the tribes (now colonies) lost track of them. The exodus of the 13 tribes would coincide with the exodus of the 13th tribe. It looks like the exodus was a single event... they just can't seem to keep their dates straight (whether it's 2, 3 or 4K years). --Steelviper 07:31, 7 January 2008 (CST)