Talk:Floating timeline

Comics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Unassessed

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Floating timeline in action

http://www.chronologyproject.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=15124#15124 Re Carter /Clinton situation

For other examples of the sliding timscale in action, take a look at this:

http://www.jrhunt.co.uk/thunderbolts/plottriv.htm

Thunderbolts #33 Jolt's kind-of boyfriend wearing a Blink 182 T-Shirt, despite them not being around during Onslaught (Summer '96). Proof of Marvel's sliding timescale? Could be.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_182#Early_career_.281992.E2.80.931996.29 notes that this band did exist and was known as Blink 182 as early as 1995. However, they were not well known in 1996.)

Code of Honor#2, which takes place isochronally around the events of the Dark Phoenix saga: a bit of newspaper can be seen holding a review of the film Swingers, which starred John Favreau, who later played Foggy Nelson and will direct the Iron Man film. Due to the rolling timescale, this is not an anachronism (and was probably not an in-joke, since COH came out before 2003).

Eda Arul now overwrites Idi Amin in MTIO#41, due to Ronald Byrd. See pg 232 of FF Encyclopedia. This was specifically done to avoid topicality.

http://www.geocities.com/marvel_villains/advisor/advisor.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin (The real Idi Amin is dead. He had the inclination to do what Mogul emperor Akbar did not to Hindus.)

08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Cleanup

A good article overall, but it requires some cleanup. There is a lot of information presented here, but it is unorganized and the writing is hard to follow. Some of this information should instead be bulleted and listed as examples of a floating timeline, rather than just being written seemingly at random in the main body of the article. I'll try and get to it later when I have more time. -Kraw Night 06:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond

The James Bond of the novels was a veteran of World War II, but is immortal in the movie versions.

This is not strictly correct. James Bond in the movies is not immortal. The James Bond character which appears in Dr.No to Die Another day did live within a floating timeline - though immortality is a different concept entirely. Casino Royal rebooted the movie version of Bond, it is not yet clear whether James Bond (movies) is still living within a floating time-line.

The time-line of the (canon) James Bond novels is frankly just messed up. When the Bond novels returned in the 1980s the author (John Gardner) used a plain and simple floting timeline. Bond had aged sinced his adventures in the 1950s - but not by 30 years. When Raymond Benson took over from Gardner in the 1990s Bond returned to his youthfulness of the much earlier Fleming novels.

Currently the (canon) novels about James Bond's youth make clear that Bond was a young boy during the 1930s. This suggests that in any canon novel set in the 2000s James Bond would be a very old man.

Too long opening.

Please consider ordering everything by a section, the opening was so big I didn't even bother reading half of it. TheBlazikenMaster 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Is it worth adding James Bond back in?
Would Blackadder count? Or Dr Who? TimothyJacobson (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder doesn't count. Each Edmund Blackadder is an ancestor of the previous one. The timeline is fixed on historical times. Despite each Blackadder sharing traits and names, they are ultimately different characters. Including Baldrick. There's a Christmas Special and several lines that mention this.

Doctor Who doesn't have a floating timeline either. Again, there's references to The Doctor meeting characters in certain timelines, like in the recent episode The Poison Sky. He's a time traveller, but his timeline is also fixed.

Simpsons

I realize this article has numerous things in need of fixing, but I was thinking it's worth mentioning the continuity that is present in The Simpsons. For example, Maude Flanders died, and she was never brought back. Same with Bleeding Gums Murphy, and a few others, like Lionel Hutz and Troy McLure (who are permanently retired out of respect to Phil Hartman). I'm wondering if it's worth it, but I think I'll try and edit accordingly anyway. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikekearn (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a few sentences onto the section. I don't know that it's needed, but the statement on other characters' deaths came from this site which clearly shows other characters who have died, most of whom were killed off in the same episode they were introduced. Not sure if it really needs to be added as a source, as that information is also available on the Wikipedia articles of those other characters. I also left out their cat, Snowball, as its death is the whole plot of one episode and was mostly a jab on the status quo maintained in the show. Oh, and I signed this one, see? --Mike | Contrib 06:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs, Simpsons and Family Guy use appropriate?

Is it really appropriate to this article to single out a specific show for it's own section? We could do this with numerous novel series, tv shows and etc. I can think of at least 4 off the top of my head. Using Upstairs, Simpsons or Family Guy as a general example is fine, but I don't think either show is any more significant in the use of this literary method than any other series or TV show. They smack of being akin to trivia sections. These sections should be removed or combined into one section and pared back. --Lendorien (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They might be a little long, but I think they merit discussion for the different ways they have dealt with the issues the floating timelines created regarding the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief — The Simpsons with the episodes mentioned that either created humorously far-fetched explanations, or humorously retconned everything, and Family Guy for the two jokes cited. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I think this article makes the right decision in not discussing South Park's floating timeline, as that show has AFAIR only dealt with it once, by promoting the boys to fourth grade at the beginning of one season. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbeat

Has been going since 1992 but is still set in the 1960's! db1987db (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

critisim?

What there is no critisim of this? Shouldn't there be something about how this allows companies to keep selling the same characters forever? There is a little bit in the begening but could be expanded. Some shows such as the Simpsons actually mention the years as mentioned on the article, which would create a plot hole, or alternate laws of aging. However Homer Simpson is seen in flash backs as being young. Also what about when compared to other cartoons, hardly any cartoons ever age and is never mentioned that they never age. However Peter Pan part of the story is that people in Never Never Land never age. This idea is kind of destroyed by having every other cartoon never age either. This has to create serious plot holes or major numerous retcons. I get the idea of it and I get why it's done. But come on never aging for 40 years and/or changing the stroyline a dozen times is a little overboard. After a while you have to view it for what it is. People trying to keep you latched onto something you already are familer with to keep selling you more products. I'm sure there is plenty of critisim to this, the just don't call it "floating timeline".