Talk:Timeline

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving. -- Yamara ✉ 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Just in case anyone comes to this page looking for information on timelines, know that a good deal of recent information exists within the fields of business management, engineering and social theory. I will be updating this page to that extent over the next few months. So, keep an eye out. JAT, 2.16.2009

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatosado (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff

I cut out the disambiguation, the vast majority of links to this page are about timelines, not about Crichton dml: ...

The term "timeline", when used by itself, can refer to:

Timeline is the title of a 1999 historical / science fiction novel by Michael Crichton.

Timeline is also the title of a 2003 motion picture based on the novel.

For a list of timelines on various subjects, see: List of themed timelines

This is a disambiguation page, that is, one that just points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name. If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page.

All right, then I'll put it at the bottom of List of themed timelines as a See Also. GUllman 22:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Burnsanthony changed this page from a redirect into a dicdef (and a poorly written one at that). List of themed timelines already has a good definition of "timeline", so I made it back into a redirect. He did add one useful-looking external link, which I added to the external links there. DopefishJustin 20:40, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I removed http://www.historicaltimeline.com from the Bottom-Link-Section because i consider it as a Link to an Amazon-Affiliate-Spam-Site that does not show any signs of a real timeline except a short list of dates. Krstwo (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed http://www.historyexplorer.net from the Bottom-Link-Section because there are no timelines on that website, only quite useless lists of dates KRS TWO

Timeline

Over the course of development of Wikipedia, this article went back to being a redirect to Chronology, which was not very helpful.

A detailed description of what a timeline is, how it works, how it came to be invented and refined as a standard tool of information, and some salient examples, should be the focus of this article. —Yamara ✉ 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Spanish, there is no such distinction. Probably because it is redundant. However since time and line tend to rhyme, probably these two articles should be integrated. This inability to understand that, culturally there is no 'one-on-one' equivalence is one of the major weaknesses of Wikidata's essentially Anglophone idea of the uniqueness of links Timpo (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Timeline

How about a definition of 'internal timeline' under 'types of timelines'? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing gibberish

The following gibberish was appended anonymously in April to the Uses of timelines section:

A timeline is related to,^{[clarification needed]} either one or all of the three, 1. the question or, that is, inquiry of when--one of the five Ws, 2. the subject or, that is, either concept or idea of time, and 3. the science of chronology.

Whether or not it was meant as vandalism (and the excessive use of links suggests not, unless it's a particularly elaborate form of vandalism), the sentence adds no information regarding the uses of timelines, is abominably constructed, is confusing and therefore is useless to the reader, as the {{Clarify}} tag added soon after attests. I am removing the sentence.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

ChronoZoom Timeline Project.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim

"By the 17th century, historians had started to claim that chronology and geography were the two sources of precise information which bring order to the chaos of history."

Very interesting claim, no sources however. At first glance I thought it was sourced to Cartographies of Time page 17-18, since that was the next citation in the text, but upon inspecting the source, it only verifies the preceding sentence: "Various graphical experiments emerged, from fitting the whole of history on a calendar year to series of historical drawings, in the hopes of making a metaphorical map of time."

Overall, I just find this a dubious claim. History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides already recorded events year-by-year, so I think the usefulness of strict chronology wasn't lost on the ancients. Koopinator (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On page 17 of Cartographies of Time I found this sentence "Teachers and theorists claimed, over and over again, that chronology and geography were the two eyes of history: sources of precise, unquestionable information, which introduced order to the apparent chaos of events."

I believe this is likely the source for the claim you're referring to. RevolverGate (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should add that the sentence immediately proceeding that one states "In the Renaissance, historians became more ambitious and critical." Which is likely the source of "By the 17th century, historians..." In the article. RevolverGate (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]