Talk:Timeline

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Timeline

message: How about a definition of 'internal timeline' under 'types of timelines'? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal Timeline

message: The following gibberish was appended anonymously in April to the Uses of timelines section: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  tag added soon after attests. I am removing the sentence.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing gibberish 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Dubious claim