275:' books. Taking an example 1789: "(Speculation based on the internal timeline of Scarlet Pimpernel series by Baroness Orczy and The New Traveller’s Almanac by Alan Moore)." This would imply this is speculative guesswork combined with plot summary. As I said on the talk page I think this would probably be better on a fan site and I am concerned that this timeline is either just largely stating the bulk of
245:
can "easily be corrected" or that it "just needs some slight touches" are completely understating the problems here--it is very difficult and I believe impossible (hence the nomination) to separate the references to Moore's work from the fan fiction. An article that restricted itself--as
Knowledge is required to--to dates that are actually found in Moore's work would be a very short article indeed.
302:
League and the events in the upcoming Black
Dossier, as well as the travels of Prospero's Group (the first league). If you actually sit down and look at the dates in Moore's work you see it spans from the 1600's to about the 1920's and that doesnt sound like it would constitute a very short article to me unless you're extremely concise.
200:
Lack of sources as well as speculation can easily be corrected. Real-world context could take a bit of time but would be interesting. I can add some info concerning the travels recorded in the almanac of Vol.2. I can also edit and clean up following the suggestions of
Emperor. The timeline could also
124:, in fact includes vast amounts of information invented by Knowledge editors and marked as "speculation". It also contains numerous historical events that are assumed without evidence to have occurred in Moore's universe. This is an exercise in creative writing in the guise of a Knowledge article.
331:
Most of the events referenced state are acompanied by their sources. But you do have a point that some of this is marked within the text itself as "speculation" of one form or another. Either remove speculations or attribute who is doing them. Nevins, Lofficier or someone else, but not anonymously.
244:
a plot summary of Moore's work; instead, it takes characters that are appear (often in the briefest way) in the comic and imagines what kind of interactions they might have had in Moore's imaginary universe. This is a fun project but completely unencyclopedic. I think editors who say this problem
318:
At it's worst it is a bit rambling and shot through with speculation on what Moore only implies in NTA, which, I'll admit, are a bit glaring and need to be ironed out. I think most if not all of this can be filled in properly after BD comes out. As far as to whether this is or is not better suited
301:
be easy to clean it up and restrict it to what is explicitly told in Moore's universe and keep out speculation (and I will work on that). The
Timeline, without fanfic and speculation, is in fact a chronology (based on Moore's work in the Almanac) of the time between the dismantling of Mina's First
254:
I'm sorry, but fan fiction? Everything in the timeline is directly from the pages of Moore's work, or in the text of The New
Traveller's Almanac, and furthermore every entry in the timeline gives what works of literature the events/characters are drawn from and in a large part where they happen in
187:
per
Feeling Chatty. Clear violation since its just plot. Also, lack of sources leads me to believe that a lot of this is original research. Without any real-world context this is unnecessary fancruft that can be summarized in the article on the League of Extraordinary Gentlement.
283:
in that often the creators make no real attempt to create a canon and it is largely a product of fan speculation and has no real place in
Knowledge). It may be largely correct and is certainly of interest (at least to me) but is Knowledge the best place for this?
86:
81:
90:
73:
297:, I'd love to better understand what the issue is, I don't seem to understand the argument about plot summary and canon. There is a very small amount of speculation and fanfic in the Timeline. It
240:
I'm sorry to butt in again after nominating this article for deletion, but I'm afraid that people aren't recognizing what's problematic about this article. The basic issue is that it's
113:
319:
for a fan page... I defer to other's better versed in the religion of "what does or does not belong on
Knowledge." I for one am for keeping it, though.
217:- It is a long article but it appears to meet notability (a feature film as well I believe?) - it appears well written, just needs some slight touches.
345:
323:
306:
288:
259:
249:
233:
208:
192:
179:
167:
144:
128:
55:
121:
279:
with original research, especially as no one seems to have produced such a timeline before (it also impinges on my broader concerns about
255:
Moore's work (volumes 1-2, NTA, A&SV). Jess Nevins and Jean-Marc
Lofficier themselves have contributed to this timeline. Fan fiction?
77:
229:
69:
61:
140:
As it stands the entry needs a lot of work but I do think that it is possible to produce a good entry from this (probably two). (
17:
52:
267:
I suppose my concern is that it isn't clear how much is OR and/or if it is largely plot summary. A lot us drawn from
138:
360:
36:
359:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
226:
303:
223:
205:
320:
256:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
342:
280:
201:
benefit from a list of the sometimes obscure but interesting Novels the League draws from.
160:
137:. When this was PRODed I skecthed out my thoughts on how the entry could avoid deletion.
333:
156:
285:
189:
141:
107:
272:
246:
176:
125:
175:
With proper editing could make a useful addition to the LOEG main page.
353:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
159:'s point concerning articles entirely composed of plot.
103:
99:
95:
120:
This article, ostensibly a chronology of Alan Moore's
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
363:). No further edits should be made to this page.
70:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline
62:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen timeline
8:
122:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
7:
24:
271:and often with information from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
346:00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
324:00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
307:18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
289:17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
260:00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
250:15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
234:10:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
209:06:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
193:05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
180:00:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
168:16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
145:15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
129:14:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
56:07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
277:The New Traveller’s Almanac
269:The New Traveller’s Almanac
380:
356:Please do not modify it.
155:as a basic violation of
32:Please do not modify it.
329:Keep and Clean up
165:
371:
358:
232:
161:
111:
93:
34:
379:
378:
374:
373:
372:
370:
369:
368:
367:
361:deletion review
354:
281:canon (fiction)
230:52278 Alpha 771
224:Fenton, Matthew
218:
84:
68:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
377:
375:
366:
365:
349:
348:
336:
326:
321:Khat Wordsmith
312:
311:
310:
309:
292:
262:
257:Khat Wordsmith
237:
236:
203:
202:
195:
182:
170:
149:
148:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
376:
364:
362:
357:
351:
350:
347:
344:
340:
337:
335:
334:User:Dimadick
330:
327:
325:
322:
317:
314:
313:
308:
305:
304:FourtySixNtwo
300:
296:
293:
290:
287:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
258:
253:
252:
251:
248:
243:
239:
238:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
207:
206:FourtySixNtwo
199:
196:
194:
191:
186:
183:
181:
178:
174:
171:
169:
166:
164:
158:
154:
151:
150:
146:
143:
139:
136:
133:
132:
131:
130:
127:
123:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
355:
352:
341:and fix up.
338:
328:
315:
299:would indeed
298:
294:
276:
268:
264:
241:
219:
214:
204:
197:
184:
172:
162:
152:
134:
119:
45:
43:
31:
28:
343:Spacepotato
273:Jess Nevins
227:Lexic Dark
135:Weak keep
114:View log
295:Comment
286:Emperor
265:Comment
190:The Way
142:Emperor
87:protect
82:history
247:Nareek
220:thanks
185:Delete
177:Ottens
157:WP:NOT
153:Delete
126:Nareek
91:delete
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
339:Keep
316:Keep
215:Keep
198:Keep
173:Keep
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
53:ceNT
46:Keep
242:not
112:- (
50:Pea
188:--
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
48:–
291:)
284:(
222:/
163:'
147:)
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.