User talk:AdamBMorgan/Fictional history of the DC Universe

Violation

Tell me why I shouldn't list this at AfD as fancruft, inherently POV, WP:NOT violation, and any number of other icky, sticky things. Right now only its length and history keep me from being bold and doing it. Morgan Wick 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't YOU tell us why it should be deleted? I mean, "fancruft?" "Icky, sticky, things?" If you're going to protest because it isn't encyclopedic enough, then be professional yourself and cite examples of what's wrong and give suggestions on how to fix things first. As a matter of fact, I've been waiting for the new HISTORY OF THE DC UNIVERSE (to be included in issues 2 to 11 of 52) to come out (this month and the next) so we can properly update the list and provide an official source. Wilfredo Martinez 16:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me why it IS encyclopedic first, or at least within the bounds of Wikipedia? Even after History of the DCU, any events after that point are necessarily colored by whatever people who contribute afterwards decide. That is, until the next timeline comes out, at which point anything after that is colored by what people here decide, and so on, ad infinitum. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Granted, the timeline only focuses on extremely major events, those that have been established in official histories and placed down according to those, but let's face it. We're talking about the chronology of a fictional universe, and unlike other articles on aspects of fictional universes, this one has ZERO bearing on any actual stories. How often will "Bruce Wayne's parents were killed 25 years ago" have any real impact on anything, except as a trivia question, seriously? THAT'S what I mean by fancruft. By the same token, unlike in most topics having an "official" timeline actually means very little, especially if someone like [1] comes along and (very publicly) declares the "official" version "wrong". (Maybe it's my admiration of that site that's coloring my decision to question this page's existence.) I'm also bringing up similar points at Talk:Timeline of the Marvel Universe, which has even less reason to exist. Morgan Wick 23:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This article exists because the continuity of the DC Universe is of interest to a LOT of people: casual readers, hardcore fans, and even comics professionals. DC has published official timelines every time there's been a revision to their continuity. More importantly, it exists because many people have both worked on and read the article, which is what WIKIPEDIA is all about. That YOU think a timeline for a fictional universe is ultimately pointless is not enough reason to ask for deletion, especially considering the numerous fictional timelines already included on Wikipedia. And by the way, it is also against the spirit of Wikipedia to just delete stuff instead of asking for improvement first. One person's "fancruft" can be another person's hard-worked-for goal. Next time, point out EXACTLY what is wrong with any article and ask for corrections (or do them yourself) first. Also, never lose sight that, ultimately, Wikipedia is a WIKI, not a real encyclopedia; nothing, not even deletion, is permanent here- it will be what the public makes out of it. Getting too obsessed with the rules can lead to endless arguments and revision wars. Wilfredo Martinez 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please keep things WP:CIVIL. I personally remain unconvinced this is exactly the province of Wikipedia. And I think a reading of WP:NOT may be in order as well. But I will drop this debate for now and let this stand as food for thought. I have nothing against the continuity of the DCU, but having a formal timeline may be pushing it. Morgan Wick 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to be civil; sorry if I offended, but your own tone has been annoying from the start, thought you might not have realized it. And I'm aware of what wikipedia is; as I explained, it's a Wiki, and while trying to keep it as correct and useful as possible is entertaining, it will never be a true encyclopedia as long as it keeps allowing any casual user to alter anything at any time. There is no point in arguing over that so I won't. And you may wish to discuss the actual usefulness of Fictional Timelines in general in the approriate areas, such as Timeline of Fictional Events. Wilfredo Martinez 17:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that article is just laughable. Remove the references and it's an Uncyclopedia article. I'm not going to chase around article after article on a mad crusade, though... Morgan Wick 00:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be laughable to you, but it was nominated for deletion once and the concensus was that it should be retained. And people keep contributing to it- because it's fun; that's the main motivation for most of us here, not chasing after perfect encyclopedic formating, that's up to the editors to do. And if you are going to contribute to wikipedia, you should read several articles related to a topic to see what the actual stance on it is before you start demanding changes. You also should read the talk pages of most of the articles here so you can see how we talk around here and learn to tell between a 'personal attack' and genuine advice. I recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics for both things.

And that is my LAST comment on this subject; I'd rather spend my time actually working on the site than arguing. Wilfredo Martinez 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not put this all on the DCP:Timeline where you can geek out to your hearts' content?Roygbiv666 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They'll probably end up copying our stuff like all other Wikis do anyway. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Just for the record? Lian Harper cannot have been born AFTER Jason Todd's death. Jason Todd was on the team of Titans that went to go tangle with Cheshire. Lian was alive and well at the time, and Speedy got to see her.

So, that needs fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.75.197 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Discripencies

Modern age krypton came from Calatonians. This is the only explanation I can get if 250,000 years ago Kryptonians have advanced cloning technology, and 100,000 years ago civilization is created.--69.255.16.162 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's magic spell

I clarified the fact that Hitler's spell kept out only the magic-using heroes (or those with a vulnerability to magic, like Superman) out of Axis-held territory, not all of them. But these happened to include those who could have ended the war quickly (like The Spectre). It must be noted that in a recent issue of Action Comics (featuring memories of the Earth-2 Superman) the barrier was shown as being an impenetrable wall rather than a mind-control zone, but this is a definite reinterpretation of the spell (likely an error on the writer's part.) Hopefully the new History of the DC Universe segment of 52 will clear up this up soon. Wilfredo Martinez 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

THe Spear of Longinus has been shown to control anyone with powers. See recent issues of JSA:Classified in which Wildcat and Green Arrow take ona cult that has the Spear. --<b>Chris Griswold</b> 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Spear itself possesses incredible, undefined powers, but the effects of Hitler's spell, as seen in All-Star Squadron stories, where well defined. In addition, if anyone with superhuman abilities were affected by the spell, several of the Creature Commandos would not have been able to operate on Axis territory. But again, we'll have to see how it is described post-Infinite Crisis. Wilfredo Martinez 03:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm citing a comic book from only a few months ago, rather than one that is 20 years old.

--Chris Griswold 08:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For purposes of continuity, it doesn't matter how long ago something is stated, only that it is stated within the context of being part of the same reality; and again, I'm suspicious of how good the research on the subject by current writers is. In any case, my point is that the particular USE of the Spear at the time affected only the magic-sensitive heroes, not that Spear couldn't have been used in a different way by someone else later. It might be that the Spear can control anyone but only at short range. In fact, the spell was cast with help from the Holy Grail, which suggests that the Spear couldn't have casted the spell by itself all over the Axis territories. Wilfredo Martinez 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete

No Knighfall or Death of Superman? Exvicious 18:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. But I'm waiting for the new History of DCU to clear up if they even happened... Wilfredo Martinez 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Monarch

Monarch became Extant during Zero Hour. Also, Waverider changed the original timeline anyway (creating simultaneously existing Matt Ryder and Waverider). Anyway, if you're doing possible futures, you may as well stick in Kingdom Come. Exvicious 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible futures are a sticky point. At one time, the DC Universe had a definite, unchangeable future history. Later the introduction of Hypertime made any future shown to be suspect. Once again, I'm hoping the new History of the DCU will explain what the current take on the subject is. Wilfredo Martinez 13:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Justice League

Where in Infinite Crisis #7 does it say that Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Flash and Aquaman are the founding members of the JLA? Let's let it be stated in a comic first. ChrisGriswold

• Alex Luthor stated that Wonder Woman was again a founding member of the League, so I assumed they had gone back to the original roster. But you are right, we should wait for an official post-IC retelling of the JL origin before stating the roster. However, next time please insert the comment in the Talk page, that's what it is there for. Wilfredo Martinez 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoahh!!!!! --Chris Griswold 00:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New Changes

I propose that new changes be presented here on the talk page before being added to the timeline. The most recent edit changed the year that Wayne and Kent are born and J'onnz comes to Earth, but does not cite the source. And then it changes "13 years ago" to "10 years ago", while leaving timespans and ages that no longer match. When we make these edits, they have to be done completely; otherwise, we will have a lot of conflicting statements. --Chris Griswold 03:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be the best way, yes. Discussions on what the page should contain (for example, what is and isn't relevant enough to the DCU) should be held here. However, some posters are simply not as careful as others... it's up to the more dedicated among us to make sure everything fits together. I'm currently looking for citations for every entry on the page. We could also add an invisible "please provide references for each entry you make" statement at the top of the page for would-be editors to see. Wilfredo Martinez 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas. --Chris Griswold 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize until now that I had more approx. dates to advance a year. Doing them now. (I already did the heroic age section.)--Chris Griswold 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Timeframe

What is this timeline based on? Like, what comic or reference material are you using? Exvicious 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Everything should be referenced. And I don't think the 52 history tells how long ago things happened. --Chris Griswold 21:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Official sources provided by DC have been: The History of the DC Universe (2-part miniseries) published after Crisis on Infinite Earths- which was soon contradicted by their own Post-Crisis stories; The Zero Hour timeline (in ZH #0) which intended to repair those mistakes, and was the official timeline for years (despite more discrepancies showing up later on). I understand that the DC Universe 2000 Secret Files also updated the timeline, but I've not seen it so I don't know that for a fact (anyone reading this has it?)(This may have been where Superman's origin was changed to the Superman: Birthright version). And of course various DC Secret Files (New Gods, Vertigo, etc.) kept adding their own timelines... most of them not fitting together very well, from what I've heard. Right now, for better or worse, 52's History of DC Universe *IS* the official timeline, though they really haven't changed anything important (other than the fact that the Multiverse DID exist but was destroyed (instead of having been prevented from ever existing) and the fact The Monitor MIGHT never have been killed. And no, dates aren't being offered in it.

Personally, I think Chris J. Miller's Unathorized Chronology of the DC Universe (http://dcu.smartmemes.com/) is THE best DC Timeline around; he obviously has the dedication and research skills to write and maintain it, AND he provides detailed references for each entry. Though he does include his own theories to explain certain glaring discrepancies, he clearly points out which ones they are; I'm basing my work on our Timeline on his, but trying to limit it to only the important events (otherwise it would balloon to outside accepted WP proportions) and not mentioning it as an official source (instead using his references.) Sadly, he won't be updating it until 52 is over, though that is understandable. It'll be up to us to note any important update in here in the meanwhile. -Wilfredo Martinez 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my opinion:

• The original History of the DC Universe was revised by the Zero Hour timeline.
• The relative present that the timeline presented in Zero Hour #0 no longer applies, considering Zero Hour is a 12 year old event.
• The History of the DC Universe back-up in 52 has no actual reference for the relative present.
• DC Universe Secret Files and Origins 2000 is already out dated.
• We can't really use the Unauthorized timeline because, well, it's unauthorized.

According to the current issue of Superman, it's been 13 years since the anniversary of Superman and lois's first flight. So all modern events of the DCU occurred in the last 13 years. The relative present is officially One Year Later. All the Infinite Crisis events occurred a year ago. Other than that, i think we can only present the major events in the events they occurred. Concurrently, we could also have Post-Crisis sections and Post-Zero Hour sections.Exvicious 19:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

25th century

Barry Allen went to the 30th, not the 25th, century after his trial, didn't he? WesleyDodds 00:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At some point, I believe he must, but I recall that he lives in the 25th century for some time. --Chris Griswold 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Maths isn't my strong point, but if Bart & Jenni are Barry's grand-kids and he only lived in the future briefly then Don & Dawn must have been, what 500 - 600 years old when their kids were born.

Duggy 1138 06:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was incorrect. --Chris Griswold 10:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New, uncited items.

Please find citations for the following: --Chris Griswold 10:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• 250,000 years ago: A dying group of aliens arrive on Krypton and master cloning technology. Doomsday evolves on Krypton's harsh environment, ancient life is destroyed on that part of the planet. After that Kryptonian failed experiment, the isolated settlements of Krypton continued cloning research once again to eventually establish civilization.

250,000 years ago: "Almost 25,000 years ago" (Superman/Doomsday:Hunter/Killer book 2, pg 14.)

A dying group of aliens: Don't know where that comes from. Bertron, the main scientist was grey-alien skeleton-looking, but he lived way more than 30 years before being killed by Doomsday. The text implied that the rest of the scientists came from Krypton.

Krypton: Implied in book 2, but (I think) S/D:HK book 3 states it outright.

master cloning technology: Bertron already had, the others didn't completely understand it.

Doomsday evolves: S/D:HK book 2 uses the term evolves... but I'm not sure it completely applies. A baby (not from Krypton) is thrown out onto the surface of the planet, and dies almost instantly. They scrape up the DNA and clone him, continuing this for over thirty years, until Doomsday develops.

ancient life is destroyed on that part of the planet: Doomsday is the first clone to survive and hunts the "beasts" to exinction.

The whole last sentence: "The planet's natives found Berton's destroyed lab and took his genetic research for their own use." (S/D:HK book 2 pg 27.)

Duggy 1138 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Adjustment for OYL

OYL later starts at the end of crisis, and at the beginning of 52, not at the beginning of IC. Although IC was briefer than we experienced it, it still occured before the "One Year Ago" point. Duggy 1138 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Not sure what to say because it's right on the edge. I guess we could move all of that to Two Years Ago because you're essentially right:It did happen before One Year Ago. --Chris Griswold 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It really has to fit into the "Two Years Ago" section. If there was some way to say "beginning"/"middle"/"end" of "X years ago" that would be great... but I can't think of one.

I think the missing year needs division into, say, quarters, because we can actually do that here.

Also I notice there's a rather large gap in which nothing seemed to happen...

Duggy 1138 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that just because we know what happens down to the week does not mean we should become too detailed; we do not want to give more space to one year than, for instance, to the dawn of time. Steel's not feeling so good on June 14, or whatever is just not as important as Vandal Savage eating an alien. We just need to be careful. If you're interested in trying to catlogue the events of that year, I recommend doing so at the main article. --Chris Griswold 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say down to the week. I said quarterly. In 13 issues a couple of things worth mentioning must have happened. And as to the Dawn of time... not much happened, so there's nothing to list.

Duggy 1138 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

COIE

Crisis happened during JLA year 7, so, instead of 5, wouldn't it be "6 years ago"? 201.53.14.134 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent time indicators

Manhunter #20: Kate says she has been a superhero for almost two years. She began in reaction to the events of Identity Crisis. Flash, Fastest Man Alive #3: Manfred Mota fought Barry Allen and Wally West 15 years apart.

These both conflict with our current timeline. --Chris Griswold (☏) 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've found Zero Hour #0. Superman's debut is listed as "10 Years ago", and recently in the Superman comic, he mentions being active for 13 years. So between Zero Hour and One Year Later, approx 3 years ahave passed. While not all events in the Zero Hour have occured on New Earth, i think certain events are still cannon. Using those two as a basis:

• 13 Years Ago
  • Suerman Debuts
  • Batman, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, J'onn J'onzz goes public, Black Canary II etc
  • Justice League
  • Possible debut of Wonder Woman

12 Years ago

• • Wally West
  • Atom
  • JSA REFORMS
• 11 Years ago
  • Dick Grayson becomes Robin
  • wNDER gIRL
• 10 Years ago
  • Teen Titans
  • John Stewart
• 9 Years ago
  • Power Girl
  • Black Lightning
• 8 Years Ago
  • Batgirl
  • New Titans
• 7 Years Ago
  • Nightwing
  • Batman's Outsiders
  • Crisis on Infinite Earths
  • Wonder Woman (Questionable! Wonder Woman is now a founding member of the League).
• 6 Years Ago
  • Maxwell Lord's Justice League
  • Barbra Gordon crippled; Oracle
  • Jason Todd Killed
• 4 Years Ago
  • Linear Men
  • JSA returns from limbo
  • Tim Drake
• 3 Years Ago
  • Zero Hour
  • The Death of Superman
    • Superboy
    • Cyborg
    • Steel
  • Knightfall
  • Emerald Twilight
    • Parallax
    • Kyle Rayner

(here's the tricky part, the 3 years in between)

• Final Night
• Brainiac 13
• Lex Luthor elected president
• The Death of Donna Troy
• Teen Titans/Outsiders
• Identity Crisis
• Countdown to Infinite Crisis
  • Rann/Thanagar War
  • Hal Jordan resurrected

etc. etc.

That's original research. We can only use referenced year-agos. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we must define what is and isn't "Original Research" for our purposes. Gathering data from various separate (but official) sources in one article cannot be considered O.R. as long as no personal assumptions are added. Right now, since DC has yet to publish a detailed timeline for the Post-Infinite Crisis universe (The "History of the DC Universe" segment of 52 was too vague) the best we can do is take the last official timeline (that would be the one from DC Universe Secret Files 2000) and update it with what we know has changed (citing appropriate issues, of course.) Sadly I DON'T have the DCU 2000 files yet- anyone who reading this has a copy? - Wilfredo Martinez 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy somewhere, but I'm buggered if I can find it.

Duggy 1138 08:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have it scanned. Not sure where I should put it so we can all get to it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris: we could host it in one of our homepages, either in WP or elsewhere. I'm willing to do it if you can't; just send me a copy via Email. -Wilfredo Martinez 14:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

While I appreciate the amount of effort that went into this entry, it is really just speculation. To my knowledge, the timeline given is not official (i.e. confirmed or released by DC Comics). Should this really be an encyclopedia entry if it is just speculation? Or, at the very least, there should be a disclaimer stating the timeline listed is not official and is simply speculation.

What makes this timeline more official than the one some other fan could come up with? There are a number of ways to interpret the events of the DCU. Just look at Dick Grayson. He was 25 before OYL, so we can assume 26 right now. He became Robin when he was 12, so that's 14 years ago. Yet the entry has it at 11 years ago. Likewise, Jason is also 12 when he becomes Robin, but the entry has him listed as 14 at the time. In fact, by my calculations, including OYL, Superman debuted 16 years ago.

Now, am I right? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't know if my speculation on this topic should be presented as fact on Wikipedia.

DJM

Wikipedia features dozens of articles that are not "official" presentations but collect well-referenced data; these do not count as speculation. Most of the events mentioned in the article are either referenced, or in the process of being verified; you should also keep in mind that Wikipedia is a Wiki and therefore any of its articles is subject to revision at any time, unlike a true encyclopedia's. You are correct in that the language at the introduction could be made more clear, I'll try to fix it. - Wilfredo Martinez 14:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, our pool of referencable data here consists entirely of works of fiction, many of which directly or indirectly contradict each other, many of which involve literally altering or even breaking history itself, and almost all of which predate the most recent warm reboot of the DC Universe. Even post-IC works are already starting to throw up contradictions with 52. And you don't have to go very far down the road of trying to unravel, rationalise and make sense of the confusion before you step into serious original research territory. And even if you keep going, what you end up is either an inconsistent timeline which the faithful will disagree and argue over until the end of time, or a timeline which is the work of a very small group of like-minded people or even a single person - in other words, the Unofficial Chronology.

Whichever way you look at this, quite frankly I think you're fighting a losing battle unless you ignore all but the most clear-cut and unambiguous of sources. -- SamSim 15:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is why I think the "encyclopedic" thing to do is simply to accept whatever official Timeline DC puts out, even if it has contradictions, and then update it (with appropriate references) as we go along. I'm working on that right now. -Wilfredo Martinez 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilfredo, I tried to send those pages, but your inbox was full. --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

Chris: my stupid Email has been malfunctioning of late, but don't worry, I got the Timeline Scan. Thank you very much! More on that soon. - Wilfredo Martinez 14:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Booster Gold.

His death in Infinite Crisis? When did that happen? He survived Infinite Crisis. Plus, does his death need to be even mentioned? Duggy 1138 09:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened, but it looks like part of Barry Allen's item got left behind when he was moved. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool, I thought I was missing something.

Duggy 1138 11:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Title and Content change?

It has been pointed out by some editors that the articles on Marvel & DC Timelines and Major Events are not properly labeled. After much research and consideration, I'm thinking that, in order to be as "encyclopedic" as possible, we would have to use the terms employed by the publications themselves. In the case of the DC articles, that would mean that "Timeline of the DC Universe" should be retitled "History of the DC Universe" (and merged with the article of that name we already have) while the article named "Major Events of the DC Universe" should be retitled "Timeline of the DC Universe" and expanded to cover all notable events in the Modern Era of Superheroes, not just the most notable storylines. Updates from other sources would have to include references.

However, personally I think the current titles and contents are more correct and useful as they are, and making such changes (except for the referencing) would be a step back, not forward.

Opinions?

Wikipedia does not work for Marvel or DC, and so we do not need to follow their corporate policy or naming schemes. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, but if we're going to work on the assumption that we must report things as they are presented (to avoid Original Research) then using their terms is obligatory. (Please note, however, that I personally do NOT subscribe to the premise that "Wikipedia has to be 100% encyclopedic in its format". But my opinion alone doesn't count, thus I put this up for discussion.) -Wilfredo Martinez 03:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD Tag

I removed the AFD tag after finding out that a page for discussion of this article's deletion was never created as required by the rules; instead, it linked to the Timeline of Batman AFD page, where the DC Timeline was not discussed *at all* before it was took down. Anyone who feels this page should be deleted, please start the process all over again, or better yet, discuss it here first. -Wilfredo Martinez 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing the Homo Magi and the Atlanteans

Big chunk missing from these two sections, and the alien powers have their own important timelines like the Vega System. If you did dsome research on the New Gods pages you'd find out that "Godworld" was called Urgrund. --Basique 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Batman Adopts Robin.

I've removed the:

• Batman adopts Robin {Tim Drake} in One Year later Batman Comics

Because, along with being badly formatted, I'm not sure what it means.

I have the OYL comics, but can't access them right now... is it saying that in the missing year Batman adopted Robin... in which case, just add the Batman/Detective issue as a ref... or is it saying that Batman adopted Robin during OYL... in which case it is in the wrong spot.

Can someone clarify and re-add?

Duggy 1138 23:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A New Proposal

I've been thinking lately about how to improve this article. It's growing too long, and not all the facts mentioned are of sufficient notability. Worse, DC Comics keeps tossing up its continuity around like a salad, and there's a very real chance they will do it *again* next year when Final Crisis comes out. What to do?

I came up with these ideas:

• Only characters or groups who have starred in their own series (including Anthologies and Miniseries, but not One-Shots or as supporting characters) should be included. Robin would count, but Kid Devil would not, for example.
• The order should still be Chronological (in-universe) but the date of publication should also be included.
• Information on the event should be limited to establishing its importance, and be as brief as possible.
• Series that have been rebooted out of continuity should still be added, with a note that they are no longer part of the continuity (and why.)

Examples:

-Aprox. 40,000 years ago: Anthro, the "First Boy on Earth", a Cro-Magnon, appears. (Showcase #74, May 1968)

or

-1938: The first Superman makes his public debut on Earth-Two. (Action Comics #1, June 1938). Retconed off by Crisis on Infinite Earths.

The idea here is that (presumably) while most minor details are swooped away in DC's retcons, usually a specific series's major plotpoints are not. Also, just because a series has been eliminated from the current continuity doesn't mean it should not be mentioned as having been once part of the DC Universe.

Opinions? -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your ideas, Wilfredo.

• I agree that including only series-carrying characters would help shrink this timeline. You mention not including Kid Devil because he does not star in his own series, but he does currently star in Teen Titans as part of a group. And though 52 did not host a singular star, it still include many events with otherwise minor characters that should be included in the timeline. For instance, Starfire played an integral part in the story and also was a main character in the older runs of Teen Titans, but never carried her own series. She is a character important enough to include in the timeline, though. There are many gray areas in this suggestion.
• Dates of publications have been (or at least, should be) included in the references.
• Certain events with more than a few importances need longer explanations, obviously.
• Including out-of-continuity events will only make the list more confusing. If these are to be included, they should have their own section.

Firstly, we should hold off reformatting this list until after Final Crisis. We have a lot to do and Final Crisis may come along and throw us off again. I propose that each section (ie "Two Years Ago," "12 Years Ago," etc) should have its own article with this one serving as a hub for them all. Each "year" would have a summary at the top going over the general feel of it. Since each year would have its own article, we could allow more information since length would become less of a problem. Let me know. Detective X (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Detective:

• Teams would get one entry (per series); individual members would only get one if they have starred in their own series or miniseries. This means that the Teen Titans would be mentioned only as a team, once per each reformation of the team. Members like Robin and Inpulse/Kid Flash would get separate entries as well. The idea here is that when a character stars in its own series, it's because it has its own personal "mythos" (events, enemies, allies, etc.) to contribute to the Universe at large. Starfire, popular as she is, simply isn't major character of her own yet (all she did in 52 was tag along the other spacelost heroes.) Granted this isn't a perfect system but we have to come up with something, and in as "official" a way as we can.
• Event series without specific stars would be included, but would be limited to a summary of its events. For example:

-One Year Ago:

• • Events set in motion by Alexander Luthor and Superboy Prime cause the Multiverse to be recreated in a different form. (Infinite Crisis limited series, 2005-2006)
  • Minutes after being created, the 52 new Parallel Earths have their histories changed in random ways due to the influence of Mister Mind's Hyperflies. (52 limited series, 2006-2007)

Note that other 52 events would be covered under its tie-ins, for example, Black Adam's rampage in World War III.

• Another aim of my proposal is reducing the number of sections or spinoff pages that are going to result from the constant additions to this list. In fact, I originally started the Major Events of the DC Universe page precisely to avoid having events from the "present" listed here, but it didn't work that way.
• Waiting for Final Crisis is a bad idea; look how long it took for the Post-Infinite Crisis changes to get stablished. Again, if we stick to the major plotpoints of each series, we will be less likely to have to rewrite much of the timeline.

-Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I love this page. I really do... however, it reeks of original research. We're mashing together a number of published timelines, we ignore in-comic references when they don't fit, etc.

Honestly, I think that an AfD may be in order...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Duggy: Please read the sections "Violation" and "A New Proposal" in this page about that. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wilfredo: I have. The original research aspect isn't mentioned at any point.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the whole point of nominating this page for deletion. Frankly I'm not even going to discuss that anymore. I just have a dim view of solving problems by deleting entire articles.

However, the point of avoiding original research *has* also been mentioned several times above; Look it up. My revision proposals are meant to cover that as well. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nine Year gap...

In a 19 year timeline... that's signifcant.

I guess the 19 years is someone's attemot to fix the Donna Troy inconsistancy, but all of the extant timelines are closer to 14 or 15 years.

Changing the debut year to 19 years ago makes sense if it's specifically mentioned as happening 19 years ago, but adjusting - or partially adjusting - the rest of the timeline is OR.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I know, the Modern Age of Heroes was officially 13 years old (as stated by Superman when he spoke of his first meeting with Lois Lane) shortly before Infinity Crisis, which means it was more than a year ago in "comic book time." Therefore the Modern Age is actually around 14 years.

Now, I believe this speculation may come from such works as The Unofficial Chronology of the DC Universe, which valiantly attempts to figure out the span of this age by taking such things as 9-month pregnancies in consideration, but as you point out it is not official, and even if correct the facts it is based upon are subject to have been retconned already. For better or worse, we have to go by what the current comics say. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that 2000 said 12 years, so 13 before InfC makes sense. The 19 really doesn't work with this timeline...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Countdown #1.

Jimmy Olsen talks about things happening in the last year... implying that Countdown took place over a year... although, it could be argued that he was thinking of stuff dating back to sometime during 52. Even if he is talking about Countdown only I'd put it down to being a throw-away thing, like too many Christmases. Basically, what I'm saying is I expect this to turn up, so I'm pre-emptively shooting it down. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Final Crisis: Legion of Three Worlds

• The Time Trapper enlists the aide of Superboy-Prime to destroy the Legion of Super Heroes.

Where do you think we should place this? It goes in Future, but it is also an integral part of Final Crisis and somehow occurs during Final Crisis... Detective X (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Until Final Crisis ends, we won't know if the Legion Mini somehow involves the "present" (I doubt it.) It's just a few months (and no weekly issues, Thank God); let's wait. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

2000 Timeline.

Has someone vandalised the 2000 Timeline. How can things published after 2000 have appeared in the timeline published in 2000? Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The timeline published in 2000 has been moved to the beginning of 52... which was published in 2006... Which means that there are 6 years of comics incurrectly placed in this timeline! Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge problem with the timeline as is, anyways. It needs to be changed. Check any source you want and you'll find that it's absolutely impossible for the events from Death of Superman to Infinite Crisis to have taken place over the span of a single year. Some of us need to get together and figure out what to do with that and how to split that up. Detective X (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are Batman and Superman 45?

The article says the current continuity places the start of their careers at 20 years ago. That can't be right can it? A gx7 (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It lists Zero Hour BEFORE Death of Superman!

Regardless of how _long_ events took, that's simply out of order (Death published in 1992, Zero Hour in 1994, each taking place primarily in "the present" at the time).

I hate to move anything without being sure at a glance how much is misplaced, though -- anyone know better than me what needs to get shunted from Year Ten to Year Eleven (or vice versa) besides that initial Zero Hour line, if anything?

(Year Eleven seems awfully busy if it comes out of this still spanning Death through Graduation Day, but that's a milder and more subjective debate.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.109.118.2 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cap Year "Thirteen" at Final Crisis?

Assuming Countdown lasted around a year (citing Jimmy Olsen's line of "events of the past year" when referring to the maxi-series) can we cap Year 13 (year number subject to change as there is no way Death of Superman -> Infinite Crisis took place in ONE YEAR) at Final Crisis and all post-FC events begin at Year 14? Detective X (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we scrub the lot as original research and get back to use reliable sources for articles? it's a crazy idea but might just work? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing says that Jimmy was refering to the events of the mini-series. He could easily have been referring to previous events.

Year 13? Huh? The Zero Hour Timeline lists 10 years, The 2000 Timeline lists 12, add the stuff between 2000 & 52, a year for 52 and everything since and you have at least 14 years. 124.171.164.222 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Era Tags

As part of an effort to rescue the article from deletion, I have added tags to show which events occur within which comic-book era. As a quick guide to show how to add these, please see this table:

Tag	Wiki Code
golden age	{{ref|golden|golden age|noid=noid}}
crisis	{{ref|coie|crisis|noid=noid}}
zero hour	{{ref|zero|zero hour|noid=noid}}
infinite crisis	{{ref|ic|infinite crisis|noid=noid}}

These tags will provide links to the Storylines, events and eras subsection under Footnotes (the "noid" element prevents a back link, which could cause problems) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Flowing timeline

Events within the floating timeline are relative to the current date. For example, an event described as happening "five years ago" will always have occurred five years before the present.

Really? what reliable source says this? It's sort of true with a couple of events but various other stories are moved around all of the time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero Hour #0. The timeline in Zero Hour uses, and as far as I can tell invented, the floating timeline concept. That said, this list is going to be a mess of contradictions because the fictional history of the DC Universe really is a mess of contradictions. The era tags are an attempt to make is readable to the average wikipedian. The floating timeline boxes (with auto-adjusting equivalent dates) are an attempt to explain something that was already part of the timeline (and, as noted, come from Zero Hour). The additional paragraphs in the lead and before the timeline proper are also for the purpose of clarifing a potentially confusing list of events. If an event has moved to a different time, and this can be shown from the source material rather than guesswork, then both the old and new versions can co-exist in the same timeline. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In-Universe

Instead of edit warring over the {{in universe}} tag, let me explain my position. This timeline is clearly described in both the article title and the lead as relating to fiction. The fictional, in-universe, entries are limited to the timelines themselves; the lead, footer and explanatory sections are not written in an in-universe style. The timeline, much like Plot sections in other articles, contains fictional, in-universe information. This is appropriate for the section and not a deviation from Wikipedia's style guidelines. No reader should be confused by what is real and what is fictional following the title and lead. As such, the tag is not appropriate to this article in it's current state. The timeline can never really be written in a way that omits in-universe information. Further, I do not belive that the timeline should be written in a way that omits in-universe information.

The only other solution that I can see, and I don't think it's a good one, is to preface every entry in the timeline with something equivalent to "Writer X wrote in year Y that on this date..." This is rather clumsy and will needlessly clutter the page. In any case, each line should have a reference showing the title of the comic (with volume, issue number and date) where this information comes from. As it stands, not every line has this but the article can and shoulf be cleaned up and properly referenced in the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)