Talk:Timeline

Fry's nephew

 * Note: Discussion moved to Talk:Philip J. Fry, II

Year articles for "big" years
There are some years that could do with its own article, such as 3000, 3001, etc. But also 2000 and 1999 and thereabouts. Minor periods will of course remain in this article, but the "big years" will be split into their own article.

This is only a suggestion, however, I don't know how many of you want to expand this out in minor articles, cause this one is getting big. --SvipTalk 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ep-refs?
I think these items need ep-refs. Obviously the smallest kind we have, so as not to clutter the place up. But it really really needs it. --Buddy 21:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea to bring up a standard again for an inline reference to episodes. Something I have brought up before, mind you.  Such a standard could easily work in this case as well.  The concept was pretty straight forward, e.g.1ACV01 [[Image:Episodeicon.png|10px|Episode]].  That would give the illusion of two things that we intend; a, it is a reference to an episode/film/whatever and b, it is inline and slightly subtle. --SvipTalk 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's and illusion, but yes. That's small enough to look nice. &rarr;Buddy 12:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me create some templates then. I'll wear my foremost shell., 🇫🇮 and  (see  and ) --SvipTalk 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now used your concept in the 2999 section. Opinions?  In addition, I have added every episode from that year as well, I think it is fair for us to debate almost everything that occurs in these years. --SvipTalk 14:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Time travel goof?
Since the Machine language time code is a one-way time code, Bender was sent to go back in time and wait where Planet Express would be. But how can Nudar (or another of the aliens)obtain the book "A Brief History of Time Travel" and still come back to the present? 22:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the joke is that someone else did it. --SvipTalk 22:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

redirect?
ok, i'm going through the year articles. should i just redirect to their century instead?--I&#39;m Scruffy... the Janitor. 21:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. And redirect the century to the timeline article instead. --SvipTalk 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even the 31st century? That should at least have an article. 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saying; if you can't make stuff up for the 20th century article, make it a redirect for now. --SvipTalk 23:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Holiday Special
I know The Futurama Holiday Spectacular wasn't canon, but maybe we should find some way to incorporate them into the timeline. --User:Unit 3.0 20:07, 23 November 2010 (EST)

Real World Production
In several of the year articles, we have additions that don't really deal with Futurama at all. 1821 has Mexico's independence from Spain and 1977 is listed as the year Elvis died and Carter became president. These additions are extremely minor and in my opinion do very little, if anything, to explain the events that make the show what it is. Further, The Timeline article even says in its first line that it is a "timeline of fictional events from Futurama." I think these articles need to be refocused on Futurama and that an overhaul is warranted. Teyrn of Highever 04:01, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * If not an overhaul then at least a standard for what goes onto the timeline. 2001 doesn't have Bush succeeding Clinton but 1977 has Carter succeeding Johnson? Teyrn of Highever 04:33, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Yes, there is little to no standard on the matter right now. I assume Sanzefer was in charge of the timeline stuff, though.  At least he participates much more there.  I would recommend an opinion from him as well. --Sviptalk 17:49, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Actually I already spoke to him about this on the talk page for 1977. Teyrn of Highever 18:10, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * What I want to know is if you think that there should be a standard. In my opinion it seems weird to talk about independence movements and presidential elections on a Futurama wiki. Teyrn of Highever 18:07, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Some actual historical events are interesting, but only if Futurama somehow deals with them. The Mexican independence is never mentioned on Futurama, but the American-Mexican war is.  That's my standard.  Do you agree? --Sviptalk 18:10, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * I guess, it just that the Mexican-American war is just used in one joke. That joke has very little to do with the show. By mentioning it, I feel that we are saying that the Mexican-American war had a large impact on the show, which we know it didn't. Teyrn of Highever 18:16, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Here is another way to look at it. Since this is a timeline of fictional events, can't we just assume that the real world events stand? There is no point in saying that Carter was elected because that is real world event. We could have something on Bush being elected, because Bender destroying Gore's votes is a fictional event. Deviations from the real time line should be the only things put on, there is no point creating a year article if it just to say that nothing changed, which is effectively what the 1821 and 1977 are doing. That's my opinion anyway. Teyrn of Highever 20:27, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * I was trying to build a year network acknowledging all events related to the series, both directly and indirectly. (1966 is a very good example of an informative year article, by the way.) So, for the sake of logic, I preferred not to link to the derivates of, as DeepSpaceHomer, unaware of my goal, did here. I propose mentioning whether or not each occurrence is seen on Futurama for every year. (A couple of templates could be handy.) I also plan on changing the section names In-Universe and Real World Production to In-universe and Real-world. Sanfazer 22:41, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Way to misspell my nick, Svip! Sanfazer 22:41, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Calm down, I'm sure Svip meant to do that. Teyrn of Highever 22:43, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * But if it isn't mentioned on the show, what is the point of adding it? Teyrn of Highever 22:45, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * I don't know! I hear my username "causes terrible nightmare-ish diarrhoea". Sanfazer 23:02, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Simply a matter of organisation, IMO. As a wiki man, I'm obsessed with organisation. Sanfazer 23:02, 26 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Well, I am now aware of your goal. -- DeepSpaceHomer 00:01, 27 April 2011 (CEST)
 * Rejoiced. One of the most dedicated year editors couldn't be left out! Sanfazer 23:46, 27 April 2011 (CEST)
 * So should we rewrite part of the timeline article to explain this? Or are we going to assume since the three most frequent editors are part of this discussion that no change is needed? Teyrn of Highever 00:12, 28 April 2011 (CEST)

I missed this discussion, but to put my two cents in: I have always been of the opinion that everything said or seen in Futurama should go into the Infosphere. Things that haven't got a thing to do with the show should not. In other words, something that Futurama covers, albeit in a minor reference or joke, can go in here. That includes for example some historic events. Things that aren't mentioned or nodded at, should not be here. - akitalk 20:23, 26 June 2011 (CEST)

Merging
There are a bunch of articles about the timeline, including this ones, the ones for each year (like 3001), those per decade (like 3000s), and those per century (like 31st century). A lot of these are extremely outdated, and, frankly, useless. The article on the 31st century has for example not been updated since season 4 (3003). Isn't it best to just keep this article, and one for each year, and let that be it? Otherwise, for just adding one event in, say 3011, one has to go through a whole bunch of articles and add it. - akitalk 20:16, 26 June 2011 (CEST)
 * It would be nice if someone would respond to this. - akitalk 00:04, 6 July 2011 (CEST)
 * I didn't even notice this. Well, I find some century articles useful for when an event has been stated but covers an unknown period of time.  For example, "Minuteman" Yancy Fry's service in the American Revolutionary War could have taken place in one or two decades, so the 18th century article should exist.  Now, I don't think there should be redundancy; if we know an event takes place in a specific year, put it in that article and don't mention it in a decade or century article. -- DeepSpaceHomer 00:11, 6 July 2011 (CEST)
 * So why isn't the timeline article enough for such occasions? - akitalk 01:19, 6 July 2011 (CEST)
 * Ah, now I see what you are asking. Well in that case, despite my fondness for timeline articles, I guess I can't think of any pragmatic reason for the century or decade articles. -- DeepSpaceHomer 01:28, 6 July 2011 (CEST)

Alternate timelines
Do they get included in this?--Icyweaner2999 15:58, 1 August 2011 (CEST)
 * That would be messy, I'd rather suggest separate articles for alternate timelines. --Sviptalk 16:23, 1 August 2011 (CEST)

Decade and century articles
There have been a lot of recently created articles about decades and centuries that don't seem to do anything other than point out a single year in the timeline. I'm all for adding new articles, but does this seem excessive to anyone else? -- DeepSpaceHomer (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2011 (CET)
 * Not to me. In my opinion, the decade articles that only link to one year article are still important, because some readers might navigate through them instead of through the year articles. Same thing for century articles. Sanfazer (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2011 (CET)
 * Hmm. That's a very good point.  I'll just skulk away now... -- DeepSpaceHomer (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2011 (CET)
 * That was my objective all along! [Sanfazer laughs evilly.] Sanfazer (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2011 (CET)
 * I don't think that we need an article about 10000031st century and stuff... you can't navigate if both previous and next centuries are red links that are unlikely to become blue. --Farnsworth (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2011 (CET)