Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of the DC Universe


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Those that have voted keep have argued either that this article is not original research or that there are indeed reliable secondary sources. However, the delete side argues that no secondary sources can really be found; only the Zero Hour timeline, a primary source, truly attempts to create a timeline for this article and that the general notability guideline requires more than that. Like the closing administrator in the closely linked AfD of Fictional history of the Marvel universe, I too "find the delete argumenst are moe in accordance with policy but will be willing to undelete instantly if [multiple] proper secondary sources can be found." NW ( Talk ) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional history of the DC Universe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article (which is a time line rather than a history as the title suggests) build upon original research and can *only* be constructed from original research - the timeline presented here is constructed upon three seperate sliding timepoints that are determined by reading the primary sources (and out of date ones at that), and then deciding when comics published at any time over the last 50 years fit into them based upon clues in the comics. Please take a strong drink before reading the next bit – two examples follow.

1) For example - take one tiny small bit "modern Era of Heroes: Year One" and the bit of that which is the batman listing. This is a mixture of a number of primary sources - The Batman stuff is based upon (but not limited to) a mixture of Batman Year one (published in 1987), Batman and the Monsters (published in 2006) which means they were all published during separate versions of when year one happened.

Even more problematical is the face that the "current", "2000 timeline" and zero hour time-lines used as guidepoints have incommensurability built into them by the writers, so events that happened under one timeline did not happen under another or happened a different way under a third. So saying that they are related in the way the boxes suggest "14 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago" is complete guesswork, some events will have carried over but others will not, it’s impossible to determine until the writers decide which and when and how.

For example, the history of Lex Luthor might be right or wrong or a bit of both depending on which comics you want to hold be true.Let me give you a few brief example, until 1986, Lex Luthor grew up with Superboy in Smallville, but they changed it all and there was no superboy, and Lex Luthor did not grow up in smallville, then in 2004 or so, he did but there was no superman. Then it was decided he did not. Now they have decided that he did and superboy did exist but it all happened in a slightly different way. So when did all of this happen? Who the hell can tell?

2) Who wants an even more complex example? if you can work it out, you get a cookie on my homepage. J'onn Jones came to earth 38 years ago - but the zero hour time line happened in 1994, so that 1956 right? Using the current one, he either came back in 1971 using that dating or came back 50 odd years ago. Problem is that I have a comic that puts the date at about 1954, while another mini-series would place it happening sometime in the mid 1970s, another series about the Martian manhunter makes it slightly earlier in the 1950s. Once you decide which story is true, which timeline is it true under? Why? – let me know on my talkpage if you have an answer.

Secondary sources do discuss the DC timeline but they discuss them in general terms when noting that superhero universities operate to a) a sliding timescale and b) that slide timescale is constantly changed rather than fixed and real time in the way that the Judge Dredd universe is.

Let me repeat what I started with – this time line is impossible without novel synthesis and original research and the use of arbitrary decisions on the part of the editors about a) what happened, b) when and c) how. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although I suspect the nominator is correct that the fictional history is impossible to reconcile chronologically, if independent reliable sources exist that attempt to do so then this article must be kept. At present, no such sources are present in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with using secondary sources to do that is that they date, so if you find a secondary source that says "Bruce Wayne because Batman 15 years ago", then you still have to decide *which* of the three possible timelines that applies to, how that 15 years should be applied to the sliding time-scale because another timeline might have been imposed within the comics since then and then work out which of the stories published that predate that version of the timeline still exist. Let's not even get onto the future.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that. What this article needs is a book titled something like The DC multiverse: An attempt at a chronology or some such. In other words, the article is WP:SYNTHESIS unless reliable third-party sources exist attempt to do what the article does; construct a history of the DC Universe. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as irreconciable original research and synthesis based on in-universe primary sources. For those of you not familiar with DC Comics, the company has a habit of rewriting and tweaking the ficional history constantly. Additionally, writers will quite often contradict established story details (this was especially rampant prior to the 1960s, when DC writers held long-term continuity in low regard; editor Mort Weisinger made it a point to retell Superman's origin story every couple of years and did not care if new details were introduced to the story, because he figured the comic book audience turned over every five years). There is no such thing as a clear fictional history for DC's stories, and to try and create one is madness. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they were interesting in telling good stories, and didn't think that fans would ever vivisect, dissect, redissect and mummify their work until all the magic was gone. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much it. But that also means trying to craft a ficitonal timeline for the company is fraught with major problems. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really seeing any reason to delete here. So what if it is mostly based on primary sources and in-universe.  The article both compliments other articles and serves a navigational purpose to them.  The subject is undeniably notable and verifiable.  A case could be made for splitting into separate articles, but not really one for redlinking.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject is not "undeniably notable and verifiable". It's an unnecessary content fork based on content that can only ever be sorted via original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DC along with Marvel are unquestionably the two biggest comic lines in America. Their fictional universes are the subject of toys, films, cartoons, video games etc. read, watched, and played, read, and watched by millions around the world, or at least familiar to millions more.  DC's fictional universe alone has been covered extensively in multiple paper encyclopedias.  I think one could make valid cases for splitting or merging thies content, but it is definitely somehow or other improveable and we can discuss that on the article's talk page.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That book is a primary source, and deals with characters. Furthermore, it deals with characters in an in-universe fashion. For soemthing to be notable on Wikipedia, it must be discussed by reliable, third-party secodnary sources. In the case of fiction articles, they must be covered in an -out-of-universe fashion. DC and Marvel being notable does not mean that every single story they have published is notable; notability is not inherited. Specifically regarding this article, the very concept of this article ignores secondary sources, instead relying on an synthesis of primary sources to merit its content and existence, which violates a few Wikipedia policies. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For the same reason we kept the Fictional history of the Marvel Universe. Its notable, many comic books are involved in it together, and you have plenty of references showing the information is valid.  Comic book history is a muddled one, but still there is something to be had in it.  It doesn't have to be accurate by real world logic, such as each character doesn't age one year for every year they've been in a comic book, otherwise a lot of them by now would be old and dead.  You can still list their history as presented in the comics.   D r e a m Focus  15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You've missed the problem - it's not that those things happened that the's problem, it's that you have to *guess* where they happened to construct the article. How do you plan to deal with that? Which of the three presented time-lines are you going to use as the basis? Which secondary sources are you going to use? Without secondary sources, how are you going to determine the importance of events. In short, without original research, how are you going to construct the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep very well referenced article. Ikip (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I was the one who updated the batman year one and year two parts and also divided the sections on character to facilitate the reading of the timeline, i did it after reading Batman year one, Batman and the monster men(which is also placed on year one), the man who laughs and the Long Halloween, this last one probably being one of the main issues on the timeline, the long Halloween starts on year 2, month 6 and ends on year 3, month 10, this history is canon(which means that it does take place on the continuity) as far as i know and doesn't criticizes any other fact, after TLH there is a sequel, Dark Victory which take places from year 4, month 8 and year 5, month 10, on this history it places the coming of the first robin on year 5, here comes the problem according to DC and a majority of other sources Robin came on year 3, TLH and DV are both made by the same author and are part of the same story but the way they are made moves the appearance of main character on DCU 2 years which moves all the interactions with this character 2 years and subsequently shifts the all timeline, yet the stories are not un-canonize. I add this example cause i was the one who made the entry and the location of robin`s first appearance confused me incredibly on how to follow the stupid line, i also updated old facts like  billion of years ago, pre20th century and 1800s and 1900s and had absolutely no problem to either fill the data or comprehend it, the main problem on this page is the Character origins and the Modern Era of heroes and is cause as someone pointed out if the characters grow old they would be dead or aging on most cases, so what DC does is pretty much compress all the info on some timeline they think is correct and some stories are leaved out without a rational explanation or logic, this characters are eternal, most have lasted for 70 years and will last another 70 years so filling up this modern era which keeps adding a year with every 2 or 3 years of real time will made a lot of problems without killing or aging any of those characters.   So as for deleting the page is unnecessary, when the old parts, the golden age and pre golden age can be perfectly order without any problems cause no new data will contradict it, so is just a matter of separate this on 2 pages, the ancient story and the modern history and try to find a way to make the second work-- arnoldoaad (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever noticed in random DC comics how there are events and situations that date the events to a specific time? An example is the Batman story "Ten Nights of the Beast", which relies heavily on the fact that Ronald Reagan is president of the United States. Five years later, Bill and Hillary Clinton showed up at Superman's funeral. However, the comics in no way tell stories in real time. This is a huge recurring contradiction. There is no way you can structure these events into a logical timeline without picking and choosing with details are "correct", which is Original research, something which violates Wikipedia policy. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, events and people change randomly between appearances. James Gordon Jr. *disappeared* and some writers have stated that he does not exist. Does that mean all of the stories he was in disappeared? did they happen in a different way? The only way you can work it out is... original research Same for Donna Troy who has had something in the region of 4 or 5 origins over the last twenty years, again original research is the only way to fit them all together. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research. The only way this article can be properly sourced is if there is a book describing how the fictional DC universe and its chronology are constructed and why it keeps changing every few years. The DC Encyclopedia can't be used as source, as it is merely a dictionary of characters and equipment. --Pc13 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is pure WP:SYNTHESIS, and has no sources showing that any reliable source has even attempted such a grandiose undertaking. I just removed a deadlink from the article's External links section. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that, although this list may have problems, it is salvagable. First, I do not think WP:SYNTHESIS applies in this case; SYNTHESIS only applies when reaching "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  The conclusions (dates of events) are frequently explicitly stated in some, but not all, comics.  This is expecially true of Zero Hour which contained a timeline of the DC Universe (possibly the basis for this article, in fact).  Individual entries may be WP:OR, and should be removed, but the list as a whole can be verfied using the explicitly stated dates as mentioned.  As to the problem of the inconsistancy of DC's offical timeline, this can be solved by recognising the fact more clearly in the article.  Wikipedia is after all a tertiary source and not bound by what any company currently considers an "official" part of their fiction.  Taking the Lex Luthor example, the article can include both entries where he grew up in Smallville and where he grew up in Metropolis, provided that this is explained properly so as not the confuse the reader.  I think this can be done and, given a little time to consider the best way (probably footnotes), I will try to do so soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made a few changes, including a longer lead, tags to show events occurring in different comic book eras and some self adjusting dates for the sliding timeline (all prefaced with sliding timeline). The "Modern era" section appears to be the most WP:OR area of the time line, especially as it merges very recent events with items that seem to come from the Zero Hour timeline (everything that says "X years ago").  Without a copy of Zero Hour #0 handy, this is hard to clean up but not impossible in the future.  Comic book events could probably be moved out of the main time line itself to clean that up a bit as well (their position in the timeline seems to be mostly WP:OR but the fact that the follow each other in continuity is straight forward).  Lots of citation tags are necessary for the unreferenced dates as well.  Still, all of this is a clean up issue rather than a deletion issue to my mind. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot see what's wrong in this article. What OR are you talking about? This article is based on comic books that are reliable sources themselves when it comes to the plot and timeline of this fictional world. Netrat (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is based on managing three different time lines and deciding when stories fit into them. Often stories which were published years before and many that were published years later. So if you try and say "this happened in year one", you first have to decide which year one it happened in, then you have to decide (for example with J'onn J'onnz) which stories published in year one are the correct version of events because they contradict each other. So Lex Luthor can exist in year one way or another or another depending on which story you want to decide is important and then you just have to work out which timeline that is suppose to be in. That's before you get into the issue that if the article is going to based purely off primary sources that you cannot assign any importance to an event and the most trivial incidents must therefore be considered along with everything else or you can use original research and say "this story was important", "this story was not very important and we pretend it did not happen". --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is based on managing three different time lines and deciding when stories fit into them. Often stories which were published years before and many that were published years later. So if you try and say "this happened in year one", you first have to decide which year one it happened in, then you have to decide (for example with J'onn J'onnz) which stories published in year one are the correct version of events because they contradict each other. So Lex Luthor can exist in year one way or another or another depending on which story you want to decide is important and then you just have to work out which timeline that is suppose to be in. That's before you get into the issue that if the article is going to based purely off primary sources that you cannot assign any importance to an event and the most trivial incidents must therefore be considered along with everything else or you can use original research and say "this story was important", "this story was not very important and we pretend it did not happen". --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This problem is solved by not making a judgement about which official timeline to keep to. For instance, I have added different dates for the birth of batman and his parents' death, based on the golden age events as well the modern version.  Also, note the differences in the fate of Joe Chill, his parents' murderer.
 * Secondly, the terminology used appears to be valid but has been misused in (a lot of) places. The "X years ago" form of floating reference comes from the Zero Hour event, which included a brief timeline of the new history.  I suspect the "Year One" terms come from Batman: Year One and subsequent comics of similar names.  It is not WP:OR for the year in which Batman first appears, as clearly stated in Zero Hour, to be equated with the year in which Batman first appears, as clearly stated in Batman; Year One.  The problems with the article come from users apparently trying to extrapolate and add to the timeline based on guesswork rather than explicit dates.  The guesswork can be elimiated, however, and a decent article can be made of this with some clean up (although I must again point out that I do not have immediate access to my copy of Zero Hour which would help me do this more quickly). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, but it can't. It's impossible to eliminate guesswork, because very few comics state how much time passed since Zero Hour. Not only that, Identity Crisis retconned certain events since Zero Hour out of existence by bringing back certain pre-Zero Hour and pre-Crisis history (JLA: Year One, for example, is no longer in continuity), so the sliding timescale presented in Zero Hour is no longer reliable. But the biggest problem is the timeline being presented as the "major events in the DCU". Who's going to determine which stories are major? You, me? Without third-party sources, the primary sources used to make the listing won't have a leg to stand on. --Pc13 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The comic books are what scholars call primary sources and are not the reliable, third-party sources that all articles should cite to justify their existence. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Detailed secondary sources are required to demonstrate notability. This is a synthesis. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out, this is not a synthesis. Nor, as far as I know, are secondary sources strictly required (merely strongly recommended).  In any case I believe some secondary sources do exist and I will add them as I find them.  As for notability, I do not think that this will ever be the most notable of Wikipedia's 3m articles but I do think is is "notable enough." The DC Universe and the events within it have sufficient notability and coverage for the article to be kept in my opinion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, after reading all the comments here and the article itself I disagree with you. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm just setting out my argument for the closing admin. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I appear to have forgotten to vote. The article contains original research but it is not true to say that it can only be constructed from original research.  Primary and secondary sources are available for this information, as detailed above and shown in the article's references. The timeline may have seperate sliding timepoints (more than three in my opinion) but I do not see this as a problem as long as this is clearly outlined within the article, as I have begun to do so.  With this in place, it is not necessary to decide which comics fit as they all fit.  I agree that guesswork based on clues in a comic is not sufficient for  entry into a Wikipedia article but many comics have explicitly stated dates attached to certain events (even if some of these dates are relative rather than absolute).  I have tried to make changes to improve the article but I do not think I have the time or resources to entirely solve all of its problems.  However, I feel I have made a start on which I and others can build. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And how are you determining importance or are we going to have a party and make it the largest article to appear on wikipedia? I have detailed lists of every time Bruce Wayne is shown playing golf within the comics - you might say that's trivial but it's from the primary sources and nothing precludes their entry on this list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two points. 1) Do you have detailed lists of every time Bruce Wayne is shown playing golf within the comics with explict dates shown in the source material? I doubt it.  2) The importance of individual events is a potential, but not immediate, problem with the article.  Everything from common sense to talk page debate all the way up to arbitration can be used for that.  As the article stands, it seems to cover information fairly well. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add a "day of the week" column - because every time he plays golf may have occurred on the same tuesday. So events listed as occurring on "tuesday" in a comic will go in the Tuesday column and so on. It's from the primary sources so must be good. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the non-notability of Bruce Wayne playing golf (and this is approaching a straw man argument now), "may have occurred" is one of the existing problems with the article. Also, which primary source?  Which issue and which volume of which comic, coverdated in which month and which year, was it stated that Bruce Wayne plays golf every Tuesday?  By explicit dates from the source material, I mean something like a text box saying "This happened on the 15th of April 2009" or some other very clear, unambiguous declaration of a date.  A combination of sources should also work; for example, if source A provides a day and month, while source B provides the year (absolute or relative). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, things like this edit are not very mature. "June 15, Bruce Wayne goes skiing" without, I note, any references.  Attempting to sabotage the article to make a WP:POINT is not a good way to procede. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a reference - it's from the same comic as the rest of the section. I don't see your problem. Since it's clear the article is going to be kept, I have decided to lay back and go with the flow. The sixpack stuff is all sourced as well, saving the world has to be notable right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, I hope someone will remove all "information" sourced only to primary sources. Wikipedia requires secondary sources to tell us what is important and what is not. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the article would be blank and should be deleted. oh wait.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are allowed (if not preferred). This is a timeline.  It contains no analysis or interpretation.  It is just a list of facts sourced from the primary comic book pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that it says "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." How much, if any, of this has been reliably published by a university press or mainstream newspaper? Where are the secodnary sources to establish context (not to speak of basic notability)? Several editors have pointed out the fundamental problems with analytic, synthetic, and explanatory claims in this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take the important part of that quote to be "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." Further to this is the section that reads "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."  I submit to the closing admin that the intention of this policy is that iterpretation and analysis, things that may be subjective, should be referenced with secondary sources; the policy allows primary sources for explicit and objective facts, such as entries within this time line: Event X occurred on date Y as written in comic book Z. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename. To Timeline of the DC Universe, the lede can explain it's all fictional. The rest of the issues are handled through regular editing. The main issue seems to be a disdain for the subject area vs., of course, editors who likely love the subject area. A balance should be struck so someone's Mom who is making an effort to understand their child's pre-occupation could not only understand this universe better but just might find it rather interesting. Good editing, and writing, aided by sources will help toward those goals. -- Banj e  b oi   10:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a very sneery attitude you have - "child"? I hate to break it to you, children don't read comics in large numbers, the average age for readers of "big two" comics is about 35. As for loving the subject area - with a collection of something like 30,000 comics, I sure do love the subject area - I hate shite original research articles. However now the article block voting squad are here, all sorts of silly arguments will start to pop up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. -- Banj e  b oi   18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I just noticed the "floating timeline" calculator. That's a very bad idea, as it actively encouages original research in order to determine when the events take place. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The floating timeline comes from Zero Hour. I don't see that this effects original research one way or the other.  Any entry should only be entered on the timeline if it actually has a reference (primary or otherwise).  If an event does not have a date of any kind then people should not be trying to "determine" when the event took place (although the separate list of storylines in order may be used for that purpose). I will add a scan of the Zero Hour pages when I get hold of them again, which might support this.  Additional images showing examples of actual text boxes and timelines could help as well. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to say "Ten years ago" ("ten years ago" being in-story time). It's quite another to assume a real-world date based upon that. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is calculated automatically. Using the template, that date will always be ten years ago.  The text in the Floating timline section may need to be improved to help explain this. The table and template replaces a box which had similar information.  There was confusion about the concept, based on glancing through the talk page at least, and the ages of characters such as Superman.  The new calculation provides the information in a way that is clear and hopefully understandable to a casual reader (for example, the hypothetical "someone's Mom" Benjiboi mentions).  For example, Batman was born 38 years ago and Batman is always 38 years old.  Batman is 38 in 2009 and he was 38 in 1999; he will still be 38 in 2019.  Providing an automatic equivalent birth year (1971 as of 2009) is way to get this information across to the reader, who may not quite understand the use of a relative date (I found it hard to explain that in straight forward way).  Just to make a note about the era tags I've added, Batman was also born in 1915 (with a set, absolute date); this has a golden age tag to help explain the contradiction. I will try to improve the wording. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See comment below. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Cameron Scott: Stop making WP:POINT additions! "Clark Kent gets his hair cut" was among the last batch.  This is disruptive, abusive and immature.  The timeline did not have a problem with frivolous entries until you added them.  It does not support your AfD request if you are the one actually trying to break the article. To quote the most applicable item under WP:POINT:-
 * If you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring...
 * do suggest that half of them may be deleted without loss for the understanding of the guideline
 * do not add 42 more examples just for the purpose of making it even more cumbersome (AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Keep with additional notes/clarifications on how article is put together. It's too useful to throw away. The subject matter being complicated is not a reason to give up and delete the article. On the contrary, it's a good reason for keeping it because it helps peoples' understanding. Isn't that the main point of Wikipedia? Also, Cameron Scott, wow, that sort of thing does not help your case. ArtistScientist (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for the source that claims which in-universe events are important or not. Who defines which events are important? In which comic has it been said Bruce Wayne is 38? If there's a timescale that defines how many years passed from the beginning of the DCU until Zero Hour, which source mentions how many years has it been since Zero Hour and which ZH events have been retconned by Infinite Crisis? --Pc13 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Three responses: 1) Bruce Wayne's age is in the oft-mentioned Zero Hour #0; 2) No source that I know of mentions how many years separate "Zero Hour" and "Now". As such, it is not mentioned in the timeline (it has no source).  DC's history is very compressed, as all of DC's modern history takes place with a single decade (the first appearance of Superman until the present day), so it is possible that Zero Hour only happened a few months ago (and Earth is invaded on a roughly monthly basis).  It might be worth adding an explanatory note on that to the timeline but that is getting into WP:OR territory; 3) Whether or not an event has been retconned by Infinite Crisis or any other story is not relevent to their inclusion in the timeline.  Taking a holistic view and tagging events by era solves the problem that caused this AfD in the first place. Only a few events have been tagged so far but it should work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there should have been a fourth response... 4) Secondary sources are preferred but not required. Importance of events will, like many things, have to come down to common sense.  Note that until recently, the timeline had no problems with trivial entries.  As a guideline, I'd say anything along the lines of births, deaths, first appearances and significant character events (ie. the death of Batman's parents) will be the most important.  The lease important will be trivia like characters skiing or getting hair cuts. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the floating timeline calculator is over-analytical and silly. It simultaneously displays a relative, in-universe date and an absolute, real time date. I feel this will increase confusion rather than reduce it and that our universe should be kept out of their universe. It gives the impression that these stories have settings idiosyncratic to the years mentioned, which they didn't. Besides, the relative dates were sufficient. The reader already knows 38 years ago would have been 1971. Having the year 1971 displayed there actually gives the impression that the timeline isn't floating after all but that it's occurring in real time. ArtistScientist (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to WesleyDodds and ArtistScientist, I have amended the boxes to emphasise the relative date and clarify that the absolute date is only a guideline. I think having the absolute date guideline in the box helps reinforce somthing that might not be very clear to the casual reader.  Then again, it might just be confusing them more instead.  If this is not satisfactory, I'd recommend replacing the fourth level headers (eg. "Modern Era of Heroes: Year One") with the relative dates, as well as adding new headers to replace the boxes before "Year One." - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any secondary sources that illuminate how the floating timeline is supposed to work, or even that it should be used when looking at the DCU timeline. It appears to be an interpretation devised solely by Wiki editors based on the Zero Hour timeline. This needs to be rectified immediately, because the underlying problems with the floating timeline system have not been addressed. It's a huge OR/synthesis magnet. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had hoped I'd explained the workings of the floating timeline in the article. Honestly, which bit is unclear? I'm too close to it to really see what parts might be confusing other people.  Separate to that, the floating timeline is itself neither OR nor synthesis; I don't see why it will be a special problem.  I imagine the list will need to be heavily pruned and weeded regarding OR but that isn't going to be limited to the floating section.  Getting secondary sources is difficult but I'll work on it.  This blog has an overview of the concept but as a blog, potentially fails WP:EL WP:SPS.  I'd prefer to avoid adding to the article but there could be some grounds under WP:IAR.  I think there are some ways to limit OR anyway. In the future, assuming the AfD results in Keep, I will add images and guidelines which may help.  When I get hold of my copy, I will scan the timeline from Zero Hour, as it keeps getting referenced here, and add it to the article.  I will find examples of primary sources for date points (text boxes and the like), scan them and add them to the article.  I will then be able to write a quick guideline about the sourcing of dates from the primary sources.  As I see it, there are only three variations on this: Actual timelines, Text boxes with dates (possibly panels with dates, ie, if they include calendars or newspapers), and reasonably correlation (ie. using the timeline in Zero Hour to place events from a "Year One" comic or similar).  Avoiding self referencing in this might be tricky but not impossible. I'm afraid that I don't think I'll be able to do this in time before the closure of this AfD.  None of that will prevent OR additions but it should reduce them and give wikipedians an idea of the content and construction behind the timeline.  As I haven't and can't do this for the AfD it doesn't really make a difference but I mention it as a possible future solution. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.