Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gensokyo Timeline"

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Newspaper issue numbers)
(Newspaper issue numbers)
Line 160: Line 160:
* ''Current:'' Season 124, 1st of Hazuki <small>''([[Gensokyo Timeline|~September 19th, 2009]])''</small>
* ''Current:'' Season 124, 1st of Hazuki <small>''([[Gensokyo Timeline|~September 19th, 2009]])''</small>
* ''Proposal 1:'' [[Gensokyo Timeline#Season 124|Season 124]], Hazuki issue #1 <small>''(c. September 19th ~ October 18th, 2009)''</small>
* ''Proposal 1:'' [[Gensokyo Timeline#Season 124|Season 124]], Hazuki issue #1 <small>''(c. September 19th ~ October 18th, 2009)''</small>
* ''Proposal 2:'' [[Gensokyo Timeline#Season 124|Season 124]], Hazuki<ref>c. September 19th ~ October 18th, 2009</ref> issue #1
* ''Proposal 2:'' [[Gensokyo Timeline#Season 124|Season 124]], Hazuki<nowiki><ref>c. September 19th ~ October 18th, 2009</ref></nowiki> issue #1
Note the link format - I added some anchors to the timeline page to make it easier to link to specific years in either calendar system. --[[User:Prime32|Prime32]] ([[User talk:Prime32|talk]]) 01:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Note the link format - I added some anchors to the timeline page to make it easier to link to specific years in either calendar system. --[[User:Prime32|Prime32]] ([[User talk:Prime32|talk]]) 01:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
:The point of getting rid of the Gregorian dates is because they were based on assumptions of the Gensokyo date, and wiping them first then using a better method makes it easier to keep track of. It's fine to have the approximation but unless they're calculated (e.g. using the templates above) it's difficult to confirm what is accurate and what isn't, that's all. [[User:Drake Irving|Drake Irving]] ([[User talk:Drake Irving|talk]]) 05:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
:The point of getting rid of the Gregorian dates is because they were based on assumptions of the Gensokyo date, and wiping them first then using a better method makes it easier to keep track of. It's fine to have the approximation but unless they're calculated (e.g. using the templates above) it's difficult to confirm what is accurate and what isn't, that's all. [[User:Drake Irving|Drake Irving]] ([[User talk:Drake Irving|talk]]) 05:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Line 166: Line 166:
[[Template:NewsDateEstimate|Ok I did it]]. Will go through stuff at some point unless someone wants to do it first. [[User:Drake Irving|Drake Irving]] ([[User talk:Drake Irving|talk]]) 06:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
[[Template:NewsDateEstimate|Ok I did it]]. Will go through stuff at some point unless someone wants to do it first. [[User:Drake Irving|Drake Irving]] ([[User talk:Drake Irving|talk]]) 06:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
: Is that everything now lol? BAiJR, SoPM, the one in PMiSS? [[User:Drake Irving|Drake Irving]] ([[User talk:Drake Irving|talk]]) 06:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:13, 17 May 2018

Ancient Times[edit]

How exactly is that ancient timeline supposed to work. It looks like a scattered timeline trying to sync with the Kojiki. --Hikaruxz 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty much mostly what was mentioned in Touhou itself, or in some way directly related to what is in Touhou. However, I guess that some source-searching may be needed for them.--Tosiaki 21:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess the kojiki starting was because the timeline would look unnatural without a beginning. As long as nothing appears to come before the Big Bang then with enough work the timeline would look near perfect (Aside from the gaps in time). The use of the prehistoric events needs more research though...--Hikaruxz 21:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am fairly sure that the second and third entries right now have been mentioned in Cage in Lunatic Runagate. However, I will need to search more for if the things mentioned in the first entry are mentioned anywhere.--Tosiaki 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, was the celestial keystone thing thousands or millions and did it devastate the Earth or absolutly kill everything cause that makes a difference in whether it could be the Miocene mass extinction (Which gave rise to the dominance of humans) or the Permian mass extinction (Which gave rise to the dinosaurs). Actually neither killed off compleatly everything since Synapsids (The dominate species of the time) still survived until the Early Cretaceous.--Hikaruxz 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is the text:
Eirin: While it's true that keystones prevent earthquakes, if you pull it out it will actually cause a tremendous earthquake.
Eirin: When that keystone was pulled out to create Heaven, all creatures on Earth perished.(*)
Reisen: Master, did you see that happen... ?
Eirin: Of course not. This was a very long time ago.
(*)Note about "all creatures on Earth perished": The original text was 地上の生き物も一掃された so it may be more accurate to say, "the living things on earth were 'swept clean/purged'"--Tosiaki 22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
All mass extinctions have a natural cause and no species has ever truly been wiped out becuase all the decendents still survive today acting as they usually do in their power for dominance (So you couldn't say anything was swept clean/purged). Science and folklore...really hard to find a agreeing point but stating an unknown extinction before the Paleozoic era would probably work. --Hikaruxz 23:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I can only really work on the first 3 boxes :P. Someone else has to work on the Touhou history portion removing unnessesary parts or adding things cause I can't do those things. --Hikaruxz 01:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, femto fiber was what was used in Silent Sinner in Blue. The White Rabbit of Inaba is Tewi's backstory. The comparison of the mountains was in Cage in Lunatic Runagate. Those are the reasons for the first four "Nihon Shinwa" entries.--Tosiaki 01:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
To be more specific, femto fiber was what was used to tie up Yukari and Ran near the end of Silent Sinner in Blue. The comparison of the mountains is in chapter four of Cage in Lunatic Runagate.--Tosiaki 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll get back to you about the specific mention of femto fiber so that you would be able to be able to work on that part.--Tosiaki 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Even with the modifications I made to the translated Japanese wiki version...it still looks like some birth of some unknown belief system. I'm guessing the other parts would be boxed as well. --Hikaruxz 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Since this page, when it was first created, was an incomplete translation of this, yes, all other parts should be boxed as well.--Tosiaki 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerning femto fiber: it was in chapter 19 of Silent Sinner in Blue.--Tosiaki 01:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I recommend reading chapter 19 of Silent Sinner in Blue so as to understand more about Femto Fiber.--Tosiaki 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Amatsukami: I finally found where there was a mention of Amatsukami. It was in chapter 19 of Silent Sinner in Blue, but the translation made it a bit difficult to know that. Yukari said, 例えばダイコク様、つまり大国主から国を略奪した天津神

In the translation, it was "Like for example, Lord Daikoku. In other words, the gods of heaven feared retaliation when they stole ookuninushi's lands.

The original had "gods of heaven" being 天津神 (Amatsukami).--Tosiaki 03:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Takamagahara: I found that Keine had a spell card called 未来「高天原」--Tosiaki 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the Hijiri: I believe our timeline is completely wrong. The scrolls that Myoren appears in are set in the 1000's CE, as is noted on other parts of this wiki, the other wiki, and other Japanese history sites. Should we change it from 900 CE to the more proper 1000 to 1100 CE? --Felix3d (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All sources I have found state late 9th century or early 10th century. Perhaps you mixed it up with the date it was painted? Arcorann (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Paleozoic era - Cenozoic era[edit]

Does that look alright as the comparisons? Cause aside from the cetaceans, this is a general summary of the synapsids all the way to the dinosaurs. I personally think it's a better than the original one made on the Japanese wiki.

  • Some creatures became strong and fed on the weak (Theropod Dinosaurs 230~65.5 Mya?).
    • Dominated the world as one of the most powerful creatures on Earth if not the most powerful.
  • Some increased their numbers and were able to leave successors after being eaten (Mammals 210 Mya+?).
    • Hunted by almost everything but survived by being small and reproducing.
  • There were even those who cast aside the earth and sought a pure world in the sky (Pterosaurs 210~65.5 Mya or Birds 160 Mya+?).
    • Pterosaurs consist of the largest animals that ever flew. Birds...self-explanatory.
  • There were even those few who were unmatched but who lost their ability to adapt and went extinct (Synapsids 320~100 Mya?).
    • Former rulers of Earth before Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs and Mammals (decendents) as one of the most successful animals that ever lived. Surviving the Permian mass extinction, they failed to evolve and adapt and went extinct before the KT before their rivals they once dominated.
  • Some even gave up on the Earth and returned to the sea (Sauropterygians 245~65.5 Mya or Cetaceans 55 Mya+?).
    • Self-explanatory? (The whales are kind of a oddball from the rest though...)
  • There were very few victors, and most were destroyed in the battle, becoming extinct.
    • Well, almost all of them are dead so theres really no () needed.

--Hikaruxz 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, secondary sources like the Japanese wiki should be thought of as a useful guide and starting point, although they should not be the final be-it-all for the information. If more useful information can be added or improved upon, then it should be done.--Tosiaki 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have my own interpretations. "Some creatures became strong and fed on the weak" is too general of a statement, "Some increased their numbers and were able to leave successors after being eaten" could refer to Insects, and "There were even those few who were unmatched but who lost their ability to adapt and went extinct" could refer to Dinosaurs (at the top of the food chain). To the best of my knowledge, likely dated (as in well over 10 years ago), insects arose from some mid-Paleozoic, mammals arose from the Cretaceous, and dinosaurs in general, or the T-Rex if you want an unmatched one, failed to adapt during the K-T extinction event. - Kiefmaster99 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Mammals evolved around the same time as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs didn't fail to adapt, it's like putting a human in the freezer and locking it and telling them to adapt and survive. Dinosaurs are also a terrible example becuase they were matched; countless groups of animals lived during that era and some like the large crocodilians rivaled large dinosaurs like T-rex. Using insects is too general becuase invertebrates as a whole play different roles. --Hikaruxz 18:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Synapsids are a great example for adaptation becuase they filled the world in a way dinosaurs couldn't. You can say that dinosaurs are masterpieces of evolution but synapsids are most successful vertabrate to ever exist. Yet they went exitinct becuase they truely lost their ability to adapt any further. --Hikaruxz 18:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Theropod dinosaurs are a perfect example of strength in the sence that they were the first to use many biological weapon you see today. There evolution of power is unmatched (Not in the sence they can't be rivaled but their diversity of weaponry). While theropod dinosaurs where intelligent, it belongs to the mammals as they side towards using intelligence rather than compleatly overwhelming their prey. --Hikaruxz 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If you look deep into different dinosaurs, there alot more complicated then the sterotypical dumb lizard that couldn't survive. The use of "lost their ability to adapt any further" would better be used for animal that didn't die from mass extinctions but previous dominate animals that inevitable never bounced back and went extinct soley do to the lack of evolution. --Hikaruxz 19:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
My knowledge of dinosaurs is only elementary. Still, I wonder if ZUN did that much research into it; otherwise I'd use more general examples more accessible to a broader audience. - Kiefmaster99 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In recent times things like these are opening up to the general audience. Even synapsids who were never mentioned before in popular culture are getting their fame up (So much Gorgonopsia action...). With recent television, this is actually pretty broad. (You don't see t-rex on four legs anymore like you used to; and while incorrect for the most part, the raptors play a significant role in raising dinosaur intelligence awareness.) Pterosaurs are now usually called dinosaur-like or the counsin of dinosaurs rather than being grouped with them like before (Quetzalcoatlus [<-not the mythological beast] also acts as a good representative in popular culture being the largest flying animal to ever exist).--Hikaruxz 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess 10 years makes a difference then. Still, I wonder if Synapsids are the best example to use though.
"There were even those few who were unmatched but who lost their ability to adapt and went extinct"
If talking about pre-Permian, then "those few" can't apply as they were the "dominant terrestrial animals in the middle to late Permian period". As well, they never really "went extinct" as "some species survived into the Triassic period". If talking about post-Permian, then they weren't quite "unmatched". Still, "as a phylogenetic unit they included the mammal descendants, and in this sense synapsids are still very much a living group of vertebrates." (other quotes from Wikipedia)
"Those few" and "unmatched" are more subjective. But I would still consider Synapsids as a whole to have never went extinct. - Kiefmaster99 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You couldn't really say anything has gone fully extinct. Dinosaurs have birds and synapsids have mammals. But then the creatures that are anatomically dinosaur or anatomically synapsids are long gone. Birds are more diverse and successful as a whole while mammals are declining since the miocene mass extinction. In another way to say things is that the age of the dinosaurs never really ended. --Hikaruxz 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The year of the sealing of Gensokyo[edit]

Why is the year of the sealing of Gensokyo (1885) written down on this page like a concrete fact? From far as I know, this year has come from the estimation of going back 60 times 2 of the publish year of PoFV (2005; confirmed in the Reimu's article in BAiJR that the flower incident happened in Year 120 of the Gensokyo calander), and not any specific description from official materials. Also, I think it would be better if we have this note indicating the contradiction issue of this sealing year from the Japanese Touhou wiki: >2005年=第120季とすると、六十年周期の最初が1からではなく0からになる (If 2005=Year 120, then the beginning of the 60 period needs to be zero instead of one).--Doncot (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is true that (to the best of my knowledge) it is not possible to deduce from official sources that the sealing of Gensokyo occurred in the 60-year cycle year. I have made a minor change to reflect this. (It is possible to show that 2005 CE equates to 120 without using PoFV's release year, by the way.) Arcorann (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it better if we had the notes and explanation of this deduction (I'll be personally happy if you could show more evidence to this matter that I supposedly don't know)? Maybe I should do this, but I'm not familiar with this page and not sure how to put it. --Doncot (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The comment on this illustration is what I am using to show that 2005 must correspond to a 60-year cycle year. After that the rest is fairly simple. As for the notes, I also think that some of the notes from the Japanese page should be transferred; most of them should go in the "Notes" section. I'm happy to clean things up later if necessary. Arcorann (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Time conversion[edit]

I was looking for a way to convert the dates between Gensokyo's and Gregorian calendars. For now it would be nice to know if the lunisolar dates for the following events are precise (it seems that there are just seasons and months at Japanese Touhou Wiki):

Gregorian Gensokyo event
2003/08/12 118/7/15[1] Embodiment of Scarlet Devil
2004/05/08 118/3/21 Perfect Cherry Blossom
2004/05/18-19 119/4/1 Perfect Cherry Blossom Extra/Phantasm Stage
2004/09/27-28 119/8/14-15 Imperishable Night
2004/10/29 119/9/15 Imperishable Night Extra Stage
^ It seems that the time difference for this one causes the most problems (about 20 days less than for other dates)

On another note, wouldn't it be more natural to count months starting with 1 on new year? That would make uzuki (April) 1st instead of 4th.

• DennouNeko–[

15:54, 26 January 2013 (EST)

Well, assuming that these dates are right and with few other assumptions I've managed to convert the dates with +/- 1 day of error.
Tests and more info available here: User:DennouNeko/Time test
• DennouNeko–[ 12:15, 29 January 2013 (EST)
The lunisolar calendar dates were originally generated by assuming that it was equivalent to the Japanese lunisolar calendar. I cannot say with certainty whether this is true, but CoLA 24 implies that this may be the case, in a roundabout way. Incidentally, after double-checking there is a slight error in the PCB date - 2004/05/08 should be 3/20. Arcorann (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Thanks, I knew I've read about it somewhere already :)
It's quite possible since it was still in use in Japan not that long before Gensokyo was sealed off (till 1872~1873), but I guess only ZUN knows the truth...
For now I'd probably have to do some fine tuning before the script could be useful in any way, even if for giving approximate dates.
btw, the lunisolar date for PCB changes to something around 118/1/30 (with current numbering)?
• DennouNeko–[ 19:02, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Edit: Never mind, it seems that the lunisolar date is off by one day. And after reading a bit more about the Japanese and Chinese lunisolar calendars, it may take a bit more than just fine tuning...
• DennouNeko–[ 20:30, 29 January 2013 (EST)
Phew... Updated the script with version based on old Japanese calendar. Assuming that position of the moon at Gensokyo matches ours, then no synchronization is necessary and the dates should be precise enough.
• DennouNeko–[ 21:57, 30 January 2013 (EST)

Anyone know how well the timeline is updated?[edit]

I ask due to stuff like WaHH and Forbidden Scrollery going on and there's no real reference to other events save it being post SA/TD.--ReiKusanagi (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The timeline is updated based on thwiki.info's timeline. With regards to WaHH we can deduce seasons from the chapters and we do have references to events in the other series, so we are able to place them up to at least season accuracy. FS has no such references other than Mamizou, which means we can't place it with certainty. Arcorann (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the cautionary text?[edit]

Mostly been lurking until now, but I had a look at the Japanese timeline page that seems to be the source for this timeline and noticed that on top of that page is a warning text that cautions people to keep in mind that there's a bunch of speculation in the timeline. Is there any particular reason that isn't mentioned on here?

The text in question, found right below the Gensokyo Timeline-heading on thwiki.info

作者がそんな深いところまで考えてないだろうって部分まで、あえて突っ込んで考察してみるページです。 そのため推測がかなり入っています。ご注意下さい。 --Aku (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I wasn't aware that was there (I usually skip straight to the lower section), so I'll add something to that effect now. Arcorann (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice. That begs a followup-question though - Is "particularly with regard to the side works" further speculation as to what of the original article was speculation to begin with? Assuming this timeline is a translation of the japanese one, I don't suppose we could just throw in a straight translation of the entire cautionary text? --Aku (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: your first question, yes it was a bit of speculation, and one which I am now inclined to remove after some further thought Having said that, I try to go through the entries and make sure that anything included can be supported by actual evidence; in particular, the seasons and relative years of most of the games (all of the Windows games listed - note that StB and DDC are absent) can be determined directly from in-universe materials (earlier from BAiJR, later via the fighters, SoPM, etc.). Re: your second question, do you have such a translation? I am unable to translate it myself. Arcorann (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

About the five phases of the calendar[edit]

Hello everyone, did we have a reference for say that the season 133 is the year of the moon (for exemple) ? How have we deduce the three lights, the four seasons and the five phases of each year ?
Moreover, I'm confused about the logic of the cycle of the five phases : are not the phases supposed to follow a generating cycle (wood -> fire -> earth -> metal - > water -> wood, or a overcoming cycle (wood-> earth -> water -> fire -> metal -> wood) like in Chinese cosmology ? What sort of cycle is wood -> metal -> earth -> fire -> water -> wood in the actuel timeline ?
Thank you for your answers. --Fouri (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fire - Water - Wood - Metal - Earth are just the days of the week. Definitely not accurate to the "real" sexagenary cycle, but the three lights and the four seasons aren't normally a thing either. It's made up for Gensokyo's calendar. As for the order, it was stated by Yukari in Seasonal Dream Vision/A Beautiful Flower Blooming Violet Every Sixty Years that the current year (2005, Season 120) was Sun-Spring-Earth, and she also listed the orders of the components. She didn't explicitly finish the order of the five phases but she does say them in order just before, and it's pretty clear it's Fire - Water - Wood - Metal - Earth rather than Fire - Water - Wood - Earth - Metal anyways. Drake Irving (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot thanks. ;)
I was worry we've made a mistake about it. Maybe we should mention "A Beautiful Flower Blooming Violet Every Sixty Years" as reference to clarify this order ?

Ah, one last thing: shouldn't season 133 be : moon, summer, wood after sun, spring and water ? Or I have miss something again ? --Fouri (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, season 133 is the year of the Moon, Summer and Wood. Someone made a little mistake there. I've fixed it.

-Another Oni (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Great Fairy War year[edit]

This is quite a minor issue, but why is GFW dated 2008? The newspaper article in SoPM (season 125 -> 2010), release date (i know this can be irrilevant), and numbering (12.8, taking place after DS) all seem to put it during 2010. PK (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah release date and numbering are pretty unimportant, but the newspaper article is a good source to use for the actual date. I think it was mistakenly placed in 2008 because someone thought the Fairy Wars manga chapter in Strange and Bright Nature Deity would be placed between Chapter 16 and Chapter 17 (which were released in 2008). But since it's actually a volume 2 extra chapter I wouldn't say that's a reliable source for a date. Placing Fairy Wars in spring 2010 makes sense to me. Polaris (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
It's also just completely wrong to begin with because the Extra chapter isn't released in the serialization, it comes with the tankobon, which was released Feb 18, 2009.
I am very convinced FW occurs in 2009. First of all, as I just said, the chapter's release date is Feb 2009. The two main things we know about Hatate's reporting is that 1) she doesn't like to go outside for her articles, and 2) thoughtography tends to produce articles on old subject matter because it has to already be floating around for her to find it. The Kakashi news article comes out in Spring 2010, but if FW is also Spring 2010 it doesn't give her much time to grab pictures. Now sure, you might say she went out to find content in this particular instance. In the article, she talks as if she was the one there, pointing Cirno to Marisa and observing the fight. However, we see in FW Ending 5 that Aya's the one to point her towards Marisa. You might then say that this was an accidental discrepancy, and that ZUN just forgot or something. But the clincher is that in the Spoiler stage of DS, Hatate declares her conspiracy to take Aya's content using thoughtography and write articles as if they're her own. Not only does this resolve the question of why it's Hatate's article when we've seen before it should be Aya, but also explains why this article is in 2010 and not 2009 to coincide with the comic release date. The Great Fairy War was in Spring 2009, Hatate confronts Aya in August 2009, and her article is released Spring 2010. Drake Irving (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that totally checks out from Hatate's point of view. Considering her resolve to become a competition newspaper for Aya in Double Spoiler, it wouldn't make much sense if she was reporting on year-old news. It wouldn't be impossible for Hatate to nab Aya's pictures almost as soon as they were taken and bring out an article at the same time as Aya presumably would, thus fulfilling her role as Aya's spoiler. So it would be Hatate confronts Aya in August 2009, and then the Fairy War happens and Hatate steals Aya's content on the fly to report on it. Polaris (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, this could be possible too. Here I'm banking on the fact that it's said in DS that Kakashi in not popular because "the articles she wrote were things people had heard of already; thoughtography lacks speed and freshness", which seems to imply that she *is* typically using old material but is reporting on it in her own way. In the first dialogue she suggests that Aya's photos are good but her articles are trash, so she would write better ones. That being said, Aya also challenges her to make such an article in the second dialogue to see what comes of it, so maybe this could mean she actually gave her the material in this case? Hm. Drake Irving (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Also just skimming the manga chapter I noticed that the fairies are still in their old forest home before they moved to the tree behind the shrine, which means the chapter would need to take place before Autumn 2008 (which is where the timeline places the SaBND finale at least), so all I can say is the timeline is pretty whack, yo. Polaris (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Newspaper issue numbers[edit]

I recently noticed that the dates listed for Bunbunmaru and Kakashi articles are strangely pinpointed. Later I found that this seems to be because people are using the date conversion between Gensokyo's calendar and the Gregorian calendar, using e.g. "Season 120, 1st of Shimotsuki" as an exact date, taking "1st" as the day of the month. I thought it was more commonly understood nowadays that the number on the articles are not days of the month, but that month's issue number. "1st of Shimotsuki" instead means "the first newspaper issue of Shimotsuki". In fact, this is even put in the Notes section. So why are these still listed as though they're exact dates? I'm willing to makes the necessary changes on this page and the articles to reflect this unless I'm missing something here, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. Drake Irving (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's probably just that nobody really bothered to go through the entire timeline to adjust the placements of the date after we came to the issue number conclusion. For that matter, we still have real-life date approximations on every newspaper article, which we should probably get rid of, too. Polaris (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll get around to it. We can keep dates roughly month-granular for timeline purposes but I'll mark those as separate from the actual specific dates. Drake Irving (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't agree with removing the date approximations from the newspaper articles. Most of our transcripts have at least one or two notes or footnotes to explain things that aren't clear on a casual reading or without specialised knowledge, and this definitely falls into that category. What a Gensokyo-style date means in a real-world context is often important (e.g. letting you know when it takes place in relation to the games) but far from obvious. They could still benefit from a format change though, both for the looser date range and to make the issue number more clear. E.g. Tenshi's fortunetelling could be rewritten like this:

  • Current: Season 124, 1st of Hazuki (~September 19th, 2009)
  • Proposal 1: Season 124, Hazuki issue #1 (c. September 19th ~ October 18th, 2009)
  • Proposal 2: Season 124, Hazuki<ref>c. September 19th ~ October 18th, 2009</ref> issue #1

Note the link format - I added some anchors to the timeline page to make it easier to link to specific years in either calendar system. --Prime32 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The point of getting rid of the Gregorian dates is because they were based on assumptions of the Gensokyo date, and wiping them first then using a better method makes it easier to keep track of. It's fine to have the approximation but unless they're calculated (e.g. using the templates above) it's difficult to confirm what is accurate and what isn't, that's all. Drake Irving (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Also the second seems better imo. I can make a modification to timeconv for a function that maps something like {{timeconv | bla | 124 | Hazuki}} to "est. 2009/09/19 ~ 2009/10/18"; sound good? Drake Irving (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I did it. Will go through stuff at some point unless someone wants to do it first. Drake Irving (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that everything now lol? BAiJR, SoPM, the one in PMiSS? Drake Irving (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)