Talk:Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series

Timeline
It would be great if this tim line could be expanded to include events in all the others novels included in the Foundation's universe. Live the robot & empire series.

GE x FE
This timeline assumes a Year Zero, which is nonsense: if FE starts in GE 12,068, that THAT is Year One; GE 12,067 is Year Minus One; GE 12,069 is Year Two et.c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.42.219 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The timeline is wrong. Year 1FE corresponds to Year 12069GE. Albmont 01:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fixed. --Againme (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Quoriston
My 1982 copy of the Foundation Series lists it as taking place in 11.692 GE. This is obviously impossible--that's 296 years before seldon's death! When was the series edited for the new date? Citizen Premier (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

-FE Dates
Correct me if I am wrong but I was of the opinion that there was only one years difference between -1 F.E and 1 F.E and not two, because there is no "0 F.E". The beginning of foundation says "the dates are more commonly given...(as a negative)...to the year 1 F.E" not 0 F.E as maths would have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.44.173 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion
See Talk:Foundation_series--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: merging as outcome of Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series
Per the outcome at Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series and per WP:BOLD, I would like to merge the content of the article Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series within the article Foundation series in a section called Fictional timeline, while adding tags about its content, such as in-universe and Unreferenced section, and making Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series a redirect. I want to do this because the AfD was clear in that the article should not be kept and the no consensus was between deleting or merging the article. In my experience, merge discussion rarely advance when editors do not believe that the topic merits being merged (which is the case of editors with deletion arguments) or when they are not interested in the topic (which I believe is the current situation), and I believe that discussing the merge will only stall the actual merge and will allow the article Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series to be kept even though that was not supported in the AfD.

I contacted the closing administrator and he suggested a content based RfC. I would like to know if the action that I suggest would be in accordance with the AfD outcome, because I'd rather merge the content like this and replace Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series with a redirect than leave the article around while a merge discussion takes place. I do not believe that the article Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series should be kept because that was not supported in the AfD. At the same time, I do not believe that anything from that article merits to be merged because all text is unreferenced and it's mostly WP:SYNTH, but, as a compromise, I'm willing to merge the whole timeline so that other editors weight the merit of it.

So, is merging the content of the article Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series within the article Foundation series in the terms that I expressed above supported by the AfD outcome? Jfgslo (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:Requests for comment diffs:, | ,  Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Personally, I think the AFD is pretty clear in a consensus that this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If deletion is off the table, the only other options are to redirect or merge. I boldly redirected this article. But I won't object if someone wants to add dates and such to the merge target, so long as it complies with WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with merge/redirect. Andrevan@ 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge is fine, but a redirect to the section would be okay. I am pretty sure that's what I voted for at the AfD. We can easily include whatever important information is in this article in the main article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is a partial list of fictional timelines that have been deleted or redirected. I have not found any that have been kept, except in the past when Wikipedia had lower standards, which have since been renominated and deleted/redirected.


 * Articles for deletion/Batman's career timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Wing Commander timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Alien and Predator timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Ultima Universe
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events prior to the 20th century
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events, Timeline of fictional future events
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline and alternate timelines for the Warcraft lore
 * Articles for deletion/World of Greyhawk timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Legacy of Kain timeline
 * Articles for deletion/A story timeline of Another World
 * Articles for deletion/Lost island timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Metal Gear timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Silent Möbius timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Metal gear solid timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Shadowrun timeline (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Age of Worms Timeline
 * Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Beyblade timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/The X-Files Timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Hellboy fictional timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball alternate timelines
 * Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Universe timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Command & Conquer
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Grand Theft Auto III canon
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Valiant Universe
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Phantasy Star series
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Harry Potter fan fiction
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Faerûn: Present
 * Articles for deletion/EverQuest timeline (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Carlesean Timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Honorverse timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Beyblade timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Zork timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Terminator timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Shannara timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Sonic timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Bionicle timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Nosgoth timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Xanth timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Transformers timeline
 * Articles for deletion/The Sopranos timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Futurama
 * Articles for deletion/Timeline of Batman
 * Articles for deletion/Smallville timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Shadowrun timeline (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Dragonlance timeline (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Degrassi timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Pirate Timeline
 * Articles for deletion/Highlander Timelines
 * Articles for deletion/Castlevania timeline
 * I would include more. But I think 50 AFDs with the same content and same result would persuade most reasonable editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to provide some more perspective: [Chronology of Star Wars] has been put up for deletion 3 times so far and it has been no consensus each time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not including this article, there's about 8 fictional timelines that haven't been deleted. Two of them are star trek/star wars, two are doctor who, and one is tolkien. Basically, the tiny minority (less than 10%) of these timelines that are most likely to end in "no consensus to delete" are the series with the most rabid fanbases. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Almost all timelines don't survive, and those that do are the ones that have huge fanbases. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Foundation series is perhaps the best and most lauded science fiction series of all time. Comparing it to shit like Futurama, or even crap like Star Wars, is ridiculous!  How would deletion of the timeline improve wikipedia?--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, then, my !vote is to Keep: We have Timeline of Arda from that Tolkien wanker, the Foundation is far more important.--Milowent • talkblp-r  11:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This is not a prolongation of the AfD, which already ended on a merge/delete decision. Besides, you don't give us valid enough arguments, we're building an encyclopedia here, this is not a contest between Tolkien's and Asimov's fans. On the contrary many good reasons not to keep this article have been given in the AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When someone tells me how elimination of this article improves the project, I'll be interested. I write articles, so I do understand we are building an encyclopedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r  10:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Foundation series. While this is not an appropriate stand alone article, it would be appropriate section of the article once the material within it is verified. Anthem 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect but I would not terribly mind if it gets merged since it's so short - just as long as the timeline doesn't have a separate article. That's the consensus for most timeline AfDs per Shooterwalker. – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge or just keep it. All of the examples of retained fictional timelines you've cited are clearly both popular and studied by scholars (albeit scholars of pop culture in a couple of cases).  There is no particularly good reason to lose the content.  Unlike all the others, though, this particular "franchise" is primarily the result of a single author's output, which isn't the case in any of the others mentioned. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tolkien? (Arda) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the result of the AfD, we can't "just keep it", you know...Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes you can. An AfD is a discussion about deletion, which cannot happen unless there is a consensus to do so. If there's no consensus to delete, the default decision is to maintain the status quo, that is, to keep.  Any other decision arrived at -- to merge, for instance -- is purely advisory, and has no force.  So, actually, you have it precisely wrong -- your only choices here are to keep the article as is, or to merge the content into another article, preserving it in that way.  Any other choice (deletion or redirecting, which is deletion is all but name) imposes a decision on a no-consensus discussion.  Can't do that.  If you want it deleted, start up another AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a reply to your two comments above and below.
 * A no consensus close means no action pending additional discussion, not a consensus to keep. In my opinion, WP:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series has an obvious consensus against keeping as a separate article, but no consensus on the content itself. (I think it was closed incorrectly, but that's a separate issue.)
 * Per WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61, merge and redirect are valid AfD outcomes that deserve some consideration. As content decisions, they may be overridden by a later discussion that demonstrates a sufficient consensus.
 * Redirecting is not deletion – since the delete button isn't pushed, no admin tools are required. See WP:Guide to deletion. The most important distinction here is that redirecting leaves the page history visible for a potential merge. Redirecting is a content decision that may be decided by normal, non-AfD discussion such as this RfC. Insisting on another AfD here is WP:BURO that doesn't follow practice.
 * I'm open to discussing these points further, but they're somewhat tangential to the content discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct that a no-consensus close is not a consensus to keep, however it does mean that the discussion has not arrived at a decision to overturn the status quo ante, and that effectively means that the article is kept. You are incorrect in saying that a redirect is not tantamount to a deletion.  The article is a thing which is a title and content, a redirect keeps the title, but loses the content, which is true identity of the article.  An RfC cannot take the place of an AfD, so effectively deleting the content of the article through a redirect is not allowable as it creates a huge loophole around a no-consensus AfD. (Don't like that the article you nominated wasn't deleted at AfD?  Just redirect the title elsewhere and tell everyone "No, I didn't delete it.") Only a merge into another artice (with an associated redirect, of course) or leaving things as they are keeps the content, so they are the only options available in an RfC which follows a non-consensus AfD. Let's please deal with the real world and not rely on legalistic hand-waving like "the delete button isn't pushed".  A redirect without merging article content is' a deletion. The discussion is not tangential, because if I am correct, than the "redirect" !votes must be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "This article, having survived its AfD with a no consensus outcome, must not be redirected without another AfD" – is this an accurate restatement of your central point? At least one of these is required: a) this article has some special status, perhaps due to the AfD, or b) no article may be redirected without an AfD. I don't understand why no consensus should confer a special status to the AfD'd article. After a no consensus close, normal editing and dispute resolution resumes, including WP:BRD. I prefer discussion over WP:BOLD redirections following AfDs closed as no consensus or even keep, but they are allowed and are sometimes not reverted. Any editor who disagrees may revert or merge without admin assistance, and reverting is exactly what happened here (history). The strict process of AfD is mainly due to admin tools being required to delete (and also undo/restore). My mention of the "delete button" was not intentional wikilawyering; I couldn't find a policy or guideline page that states this outright, but I can find a variety of comments (with diffs) if you want them.
 * Why is this RfC insufficient compared to AfD?
 * Visibility: A WP:Requests for comment listing and notification of the AfD participants is not at all sneaky (an infrequent complaint about talk page merge discussions).
 * Adequate time for discussion: AfD is normally 7 days, and the default RfC listing period is 30 days. This discussion has been open over two weeks.
 * Consensus evaluated and closed by admin: User:Shooterwalker requested an admin close at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. It seems like it will be declined, but a new request may be submitted when appropriate.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Jfgslo's proposition. I don't really mind what happens to the content, as long as there is no separate article for this. If it's the best compromise, then I have no problem with a merge of the timeline in the main article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to point out that the article just survived an AfD, as there was no consensus to delete it. Turning it into a redirect loses the content of the article, so it is simply a deletion by another name.  Therefore, the only options available here (absent another AfD which arrives at a consensus) is to keep the article seperate, or to merge the content into another article. An RfC is not a legitimate substitute for an AfD, an a redirect cannot be used as a way to get around a lack of consensus to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not merge Timelines as spinout articles have been felt to run afoul of WP:PLOT in the past, but I find that to be a fairly silly reading of WP:PLOT. If the topic is so large that a spinout article of the timeline is the best way to handle it, we should have the spinout article if other inclusion guidelines are met.  Also do not close early, let's let the RfC finish. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've notified WP:SCIFI and WP:BOOKS about this merge discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit  (talk • contribs)  04:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)