Template talk:Timeline

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The Following is from various pages:

Eds Formating Project[edit]


Before I undertake this project, I'm going to explain it right here so everyone will understand. I think this page is too big and cumbersome to be of much use. So I'm going to split it into articles for each year. At the same time, I'm going to make a seperate "production" timeline from a real world point of view. That way, the timelines are more organized, attractive and useful. -ED 03:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did the real-world timeline end up? --Andrew Nagy 07:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2552 I suggest that we make a number of articles for each important year (2517, 2525, 2552, etc.) and put them all into a category: Timeline. At the same time, we could make a "2001 Productions", "2002 Productions", etc to cover the real world history of the developments and releases in the Halo universe. Another idea similar to the one at memory-alpha.org. -ED


Remove Fan Fiction[edit]

The c. 17,448B.C.E and c. 7,448 B.C.E were added on 17:44, 24 May 2006 by the IP: There is no evidence to support these dates and they're suspected of being FanFiction. -- 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I know this is really a big subject of dispute, sorta between conservatives and liberals, but I don't care, I'll make it a dispute between me and whoever disputes against me: Should we use B.C.E. and C.E. or B.C. and A.D.? I personally vote for...

Alternate timeline[edit]

I've started my own timeline here that lists stories rather than events; anyone who wants to move it to this wiki can feel free. --Andrew Nagy 07:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Updating the template[edit]

I've been noticing the template page a lot lately and thought it could use some revisions:

  • Remove "Military Calendar" — A significant portion of the dates on this timeline fall before the formation of the United Nations Space Command and do not adhere to the concept of the Gregorian military calendar. Considering that everything in the universe is already pretty much written to Earth standards (12 month years, 24 hour days), including Forerunner and Covenant subjects, and that a number of newer products for don't include military calendar in time and setting entries, this is an antiquated inclusion.
  • Separate out real-world years from fictional — As it is noted in "military calendar", real-world years really wouldn't apply to a fictional application of time even if they do share the same standards. Including real-world years (1999-2015) seems like more happened in the universe in our own time than actually did, which is very little when it only applies to i love bees and the non-canon Dead or Alive 4. We don't need to create separate pages like 2004 (Universe) and 2004 (Real World), but rather create a wholly separate scroll list for these dates. The pages themselves would remain separated by in-universe and real-world sections.

Helianthus All right. Shoot!

I believe there won't be much disagreement with #1, so I will go ahead remove that. Regarding #2, a separate scroll list would be counter-intuitive: the list is already long as it is and the current system in place already does the job well in informing readers whether or not the information falls within the "Fictional world" category or the "Real world" category.— subtank 06:19, 17 August 2014 (EDT)

Proposal: Split Real World From In-universe[edit]

I've been wanting to mention this for a while but I kept forgetting. Anyways, I feel that the real-world years we use to list Halo releases should not be included on a template that was designed to list events by year within the Haloverse. We could create a separate template that lists each of the real-world years, or just merge all those articles into a single article like "List of Halo releases by year" or etc. It just seems a little confusing to have real-world events listed alongside in-universe events.--Spartacus TalkContribs 11:06, 4 September 2015 (EDT)

Agreed. I think we should just have a separate timeline for the real-world years. Always good to keep fiction and out-of-universe content separate. Here is Wookieepedia's template for reference, but we don't have nearly enough real-world years as they do. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
With regard to Wookieepedia's format, they also don't have the unfortunate problem of their fictional years overlapping with real ones, which would mean we'd end up with pages with titles like "2004 (real-world)" if we want to include the canonical ILB and Iris material in their own fiction-centric year articles. 2021 will also face this issue in a few years. That said, I do support separating the timelines somehow, even if it means adding the "(real-world)" disambiguation to the titles that need it. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 03:39, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
How about an easier solution such as tagging each entry (i.e. the sentence at the end) with a visible notice informing readers that the entry is a real-world content and not part of the fictional Halo universe? In other words, we add an Appearance template but make it stand out like so: Real-world. It's easier to execute and to maintain. — subtank 11:46, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
Yeah, that could work. I was going to say creation separate sections for real-world and canon dates but, this might be an easier way. Plus, I doubt any canon dates will be placed in the upcoming real-life years now, as is the case with 2021. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 11:59, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
An alternative yet still easy solution is to separate the current entries into two sections, Halo universe and Real-world events in a page, though the problem of doing so might result in sub-subheadings lumped closely to one another, making the page unsightly (especially in mobile view). Just a suggestion. :) — subtank 12:05, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
Creating two separate sections for each one would only work decently enough if we don't get too much canon dates in a year like 2016 for example. Otherwise, the page wouldn't look that great. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 12:43, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

So I am working on a redesign of this template as a draft here, which I believe solves the problem of real-world and in-universe being listed together. I condensed the years into sections based on this page, while adding a Real World section. This also solves the problem of having to scroll endlessly to find a certain year. Any thoughts on this?--Spartacus TalkContribs 13:04, 14 October 2015 (EDT)

Looks good. My only (minor) issue is maybe renaming some of the sections, such as "Forerunner Era" to "Prehistory" perhaps. And I think that maybe we could use different templates for the real-world and canon dates so we don't have OOU stuff in canon articles, but we still have the problem of canon material overlapping with real-world years. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 13:21, 14 October 2015 (EDT)
As with NightHammer, my only issue is the naming of the sections - for example, "Human Era" also covers a number of years that are mainly Covenant-related. Then again, the timeline page also does it and I'm not sure if there's a more universal name we could give it. Having the real-world years in the template isn't that big of a problem to me, as I can see two separate templates for years might be somewhat confusing to people. Besides, we do have OOU sections in canon articles already in the form of production notes, trivia, and the like. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 00:34, 15 October 2015 (EDT)

Timeline suggestion(back and forth buttons)[edit]

This is only an idea. I can see for it and against it. But I will say it anyway just in case you folks wanna go ahead with it.

I was thinking we could have something like a back button or a forward button for the timeline.
Like if you were on the year 2552, you could click the back button to go back to 2551 or forward to go to 2553.
It could be done like the infoboxes in the event pages(Example) with a previous section that would link the previous year. And a next section that would link the following year that had an event in it.

As said this is only a suggestion. But one I feel could make the user experience that little bit better for this. I noticed this inconvenience when I was going through the timeline from start to finish. It was getting a little tedious looking on the Template for the date I want. - CIA391 (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

That would be pretty neat, I think something like Wikipedia's Year nav template could work. In any case, I think the Timeline template should be kept, for obvious reasons. -- Topal the Pilot Blueteam.png (Talk|Contribs) 04:40, 3 May 2016 (EDT)
I am not against the template It great. :) Just with 198 years with events in it(and only to grow), this suggestion paired with the template would make things easier for users in a small way. -CIA391 (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2016 (EDT)

New changes[edit]

As per the new changes, is "next" and "previous" for the previous and subsequent year (for example, 2555's next is 2556 and previous is 2554) or are we placing the next and previous year that exists on the timeline (for example, 2170's next is 2178 and previous is 2165)? If the former, we should probably make it so we can hide the "previous" and "next" fields. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 16:07, 2 August 2016 (EDT)

It's the latter, as per this request. — subtank 10:51, 3 August 2016 (EDT)
Alright, thanks, that's what I figured. I'll see if I have time today to update the timeline pages. --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 10:52, 3 August 2016 (EDT)
You can see a couple of working examples here: 2610, 500,000,000 BCE and 100,000,000,000 BCE. — subtank 11:09, 3 August 2016 (EDT)

Colour in the template[edit]

I am not sure if its possible. But is it possible to put some colour in the template to signify big things.

Like for example(colours are not final but merely an idea)

  • Like Light Blue for before the firing of the rings.
  • Red or something for before the Human covenant war.
  • Purple for the Human-covenant war.
  • And Orange for post war

Just an idea that just popped into my head.-CIA391 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

Revert to previous design[edit]

I would suggest reverting the template back to its previous design given that (1) the titles for each era are not official titles, (2) the use __NOTOC__* in this template would cause the TOCs to not appear in all articles with a Timeline template, (3) the current design does not appear well in mobile view, and (4) the use of "Real World" just creates redundancy/duplicated years.

* This is partly due to the design of the Scrollbox template which uses a Level 3 Heading. There is no way around this unless you change the Scrollbox template which will adversely affect all articles with a Scrollbox template.

Do consider the above points.— subtank 12:09, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

Agreed. I'm particularly uncomfortable about the use of our informal era system in such a prominent place, and with the "Previous" and "Next" arrows, the template should be easy enough to navigate now even without the subsections. --Jugus (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2016 (EDT)
I agree with the point about Era names and intend to change those, I was more or less using them as a placeholder (best idea there would be to divide the list into BCE and CE). However, I think the list should at least be divided up in some way into common years, as well as separating the years with real-world only events (there's only two duplicates, 1999 and 2004). Previous and next only works if the reader wishes to go directly to the next or previous year. However, if the reader intends to go from 2552 to 852 BCE or vice-versa, that's quite a lot of scrolling (which is a pain since the scrollbar always defaults to the top), which will only get longer with the addition of more years.--Spartacus TalkContribs 14:02, 13 September 2016 (EDT)
I've been trying out some designs and the best compromise is the implementation of the "next/previous" feature. Other wikis such as Wookieepdia (which had little to no articles on years) and Wikipedia (which struggled with the rapid development of real-world events) are unable to provide guidance on constructing a good timeline template. What we can do with the concept of "common years" is to create articles on those "common years" (i.e. an article on 2550s, like Wikipedia's 1990s) while avoiding using fan-made/pseudo-official era titles. If these proposals can be agreed, I'll proceed with reverting the template to its previous design.— subtank 13:21, 18 September 2016 (EDT)

Can we get rid of the giant obnoxious box that goes with each page for a year so that it only contains "previous" and "next"?—This unsigned comment was made by TheEld (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Mind giving a bit more detail? — subtank 12:28, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
I was hoping we could make the Timeline infobox on each page it appears on a simple box that just contains links to the previous and next years instead of also having a giant section that splits up history into arbitray categories, etc. Look at the page for 2553, for example. I'd like to put in an image for January but can't due to the unwieldy infobox.TheEld (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
Firstly, those aren't arbitrary categories; they are based off Halo Mythos (see Project: Timeline). Secondly, there is no need for an infobox because most of the articles about the years are too short and are already concise/summarised enough. It seems like your issue is essentially the obstruction of the template with the placement of your image. I guess what we can do for now is to change the design while maintaining the categories. — subtank 13:13, 1 September 2017 (EDT)
IMO, the scroll box is too useful to be removed (with the ability to jump at any given year from any year page) but I do think the arbitrary categories should be dispensed with. --Jugus (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2017 (EDT)

(reset indent) @TheEld: I guess the temporary design will have to do for now. Would appreciate if you can ensure that the template is placed at the very end of the article (and not just at the end of the section).— subtank 13:49, 1 September 2017 (EDT)


Is the template's code broken to anyone else? The fault can't be with the template itself since earlier revisions are broken as well; might this change to the scrollbox template (or some other recent alteration of the wiki's/the relevant templates' code) have something to do with it? --Jugus (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2017 (EST)

It appears that was it. I went ahead and just reverted it back.--Spartacus TalkContribs 10:49, 3 March 2017 (EST)


I would like to suggest a change to this template that would remove the space-consuming scrollbox of every other date and instead could include an image to represent the year in question. It would make these pages much easier on the eyes.TheEld (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2018 (EDT)TheEld

Vector readability[edit]

The stuff in the outer box is white on white in the Vector skin.--D9328 (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2019 (EST)d9328

Should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out!--Spartacus TalkContribs 10:19, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Overhaul proposal[edit]

I have been working on a timeline template which I have modeled off Wikipedia's template. I will list the benefits of this below.

  • Less maintenance: The template in its current state requires a lot of maintenance. For instance, every time a new year is mentioned, it has to be added to the list manually. As this template does not contain a list, that will no longer be required. The only major work that would be necessary is to update the template on each article.
  • Categorization: The current timeline category is a massive, unorganized list (230+ pages). With this in mind, I have set the template automatically categorize the year into century subgroups where appropriate (mainly 2000-2600 where the vast majority of entries are), while BCE would be its own category. The subcategories will be categorized under the main timeline category. Ultimately it will bring organization to the timeline category.
  • No more scrollbox/dubiously-named sections: This list and its scrollbox have been noted by several users in previous conversations on this talk page as complicated. In addition, the section titles have been noted as not really official (I regret my decision to use them). The categories will make up for this. Plus, I've added an additional "next" and "previous" parameter, for those who want to jump between multiple years rather than just one at a time.
  • Elimination of real world years: Listing out of universe years on the template never made any sense. It would be best to merge those entries (barring the few that overlap due to ILB) into a hub "List of media by release" page or something to that effect. That would also be beneficial as readers wouldn't have to jump between years if they are trying to find out when a certain novel, game, or etc. was released.
  • Image: Some users such as TheEld have proposed that having an introductory image for certain notable years would be a welcome addition. Given this, I've added a parameter for images.

Changes can always be made, but overall I think this format is significantly better.--Spartacus TalkContribs 11:34, 18 February 2019 (EST)

Perhaps a separate timeline infobox/progression for real world years as they pertain to media releases and such could be created? It's something they do on Wookiepedia, and something that might work here. Of course, Star Wars has been around for more than twice as long as Halo has, and also has about 30x more stuff. The fact that the in-universe calendar bears no resemblance to the real-world calendar also helps.--D9328 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2019 (EST)d9328
I'd be in favor for this, I'm a fan! --NightHammer(talk)(contribs) 14:29, 18 February 2019 (EST)
I quite like it. I'm not fully sure about eliminating the ability to jump directly into any year out there (which I've used more than a few times), but the ideas is good. I would also probably keep the real-world year pages (since some years have quite a lot of stuff happening and a page collecting all media releases would get pretty long) but separate them more clearly from the in-universe ones. --Tacitus (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2019 (EST)
Agreed. In that case, we may as well keep this template but re-purpose it to use for the real world years, while creating a new template for the in-universe years.--Spartacus TalkContribs 10:30, 19 February 2019 (EST)