Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Timeline"

From TemeraireWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Approximate Dates)
Line 38: Line 38:
-- [[User:Strangerface|Strangerface]] 16:07, 29 September 2006 (PDT)
-- [[User:Strangerface|Strangerface]] 16:07, 29 September 2006 (PDT)
If someone cared to make a schnazzy little symbol to put next to approximate dates, we could include a legend rather than adding a note after each date.
--[[User:Железное крыло|Железное крыло]] 15:11, 6 May 2007 (PDT)
== Danzig ==
== Danzig ==

Revision as of 22:11, 6 May 2007

I don't know much about this time period so I think someone else should take over from here. --strangerface, 9/20/06

renenet is going to work on this! She believes in using paper notes for some bizarre reason, but we can expect to see her about soon :)



This is all great info!! I'm not sure it belongs on a category page, though. Let me give it some thought...

-whitearrow 09:18, 25 September 2006 (PDT)

Oh, hey, I didn't notice it was a category page. I was just going through HMD and TOJ this weekend and making notes of any time a hard date was mentioned and then trying to weave it in with the historical dates.

Strangerface 09:23, 25 September 2006 (PDT)


I started doing the italic thing when I though the timeline would be mostly historical stuff with some book stuff here and there. But now I'm staring to get a lot more book stuff than historical stuff and the italic is looking funny. I don't know a better way to do it though. I want actual historical stuff to be distinguished from fictional events but I'm not sure how.

Strangerface 09:27, 25 September 2006 (PDT)

I think we should only include historical info that's "true" for book purposes, as it will be on the article pages, and relevant background not contradicted by the books (e.g, Napoleon's birthday). If "real" history contradicts the book, we just ignore it :)

Does that sound workable?


Yes, perfectly. I think NN is trying to work within the parameters given anyway so there sholdn't be too much that's jossed. -- Strangerface 10:53, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

Approximate Dates

I got the July leaving Loch Laggan date from when Laurence tells Bedford that: “Yes, that is Temeraire. He is not yet eight months old, yet he does have nearly his full growth.” (155, HMD) I'm approximating about seven months from January.

At the very beginning of chapter 11, Laurence gives us the date as "only a day shy of October." And then Jane says it would take two weeks for her to reach Cadiz.

The date of the Battle of Dover is even more approximate. It's from this reference, "Volly brought almost two weeks to the day from his departure" (165).

-- Strangerface 16:07, 29 September 2006 (PDT)

If someone cared to make a schnazzy little symbol to put next to approximate dates, we could include a legend rather than adding a note after each date.

--Железное крыло 15:11, 6 May 2007 (PDT)


The real siege of Danzig was from March to May 1807 (see: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/danzig18071813.html ), but that's not consistent with ch. 17 of BPW, which refers to early winter, the frost, and the French army's inability to make headway on entrenching until March (until Lien arrives). It seems to me like the fictional version is in late 1806-early 1807, perhaps.

- whitearrow

I thought it seemed off in my head. The date I put up was from history. I still haven't gotten through making notes of ToJ yet. -- Strangerface 18:04, 10 October 2006 (PDT)

The dates I've put down for the siege are based on the previous date in the timeline for the loss of the Russian army, and on the infomation in the books stating the siege was already underway when Temeraire arrived at Danzig. I'm more than happy for these to be change if anyone has a better idea for the date. It's probably worth trying to tie in Iskierka‎'s DoB to the siege as well. --Andrew 03:27, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Significant Changes

Is it worth mentioning any potentially significant changes from the historical timeline? I'm thinking mostly of Nelson's survival of the Battle of Trafalgar. --Andrew 05:57, 10 January 2007 (PST)

  • Given the historical approach we're supposed to be taking, I think it'd be best to mention it in a matter of fact way. Zamboni 06:37, 10 January 2007 (PST)
  • I agree with Zamboni. :) -whitearrow 10:09, 10 January 2007 (PST)