Talk:1491: Stories of the Past and Future - Revision history

Heleatunda at 05:49, 26 January 2026

2026-01-26T05:49:32Z

172.71.122.162: Apollo

2025-01-08T10:32:43Z

Apollo

141.101.98.181 at 21:57, 3 March 2015

2015-03-03T21:57:38Z

141.101.98.254 at 11:07, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T11:07:03Z

Davidy22 at 10:10, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T10:10:56Z

199.27.133.136 at 05:53, 28 February 2015

2015-02-28T05:53:41Z

141.101.98.192 at 14:45, 27 February 2015

2015-02-27T14:45:46Z

108.162.216.79 at 22:40, 26 February 2015

2015-02-26T22:40:45Z

108.162.216.79 at 22:23, 26 February 2015

2015-02-26T22:23:50Z

108.162.250.173 at 12:31, 26 February 2015

2015-02-26T12:31:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:49, 26 January 2026
Line 79:		Line 79:

	I just read the explanation's reference to Apollo 13 one day sounding like a contemporary movie and thought "I thought it was made not too long after the actual mission" - and then it hit me: we've crossed the line. I didn't realise it was a period piece... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.162\|172.71.122.162]] 10:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)		I just read the explanation's reference to Apollo 13 one day sounding like a contemporary movie and thought "I thought it was made not too long after the actual mission" - and then it hit me: we've crossed the line. I didn't realise it was a period piece... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.162\|172.71.122.162]] 10:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	I want someone to make a current version of this that updates live as time passes, and can have new works added to it. [[User:Heleatunda\|Heleatunda]] ([[User talk:Heleatunda\|talk]]) 05:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 8 January 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:
	: I found that confusing myself - it's correct, just badly written. Our universe is 13.8b years old; the Star Wars universe is 13b years old (800,000 years younger). - Andrew Williams, 10:57BST, 28 February 2015.		: I found that confusing myself - it's correct, just badly written. Our universe is 13.8b years old; the Star Wars universe is 13b years old (800,000 years younger). - Andrew Williams, 10:57BST, 28 February 2015.
	Now, where on the graph would "The Day After Tomorrow" be placed, I wonder..? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181\|141.101.98.181]] 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)		Now, where on the graph would "The Day After Tomorrow" be placed, I wonder..? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181\|141.101.98.181]] 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+
		+	I just read the explanation's reference to Apollo 13 one day sounding like a contemporary movie and thought "I thought it was made not too long after the actual mission" - and then it hit me: we've crossed the line. I didn't realise it was a period piece... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.162\|172.71.122.162]] 10:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 3 March 2015
Line 72:		Line 72:
	The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years. The formation of galaxies puts a maximum time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B. {{unsigned ip\|199.27.133.136}}		The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years. The formation of galaxies puts a maximum time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B. {{unsigned ip\|199.27.133.136}}
	: I found that confusing myself - it's correct, just badly written. Our universe is 13.8b years old; the Star Wars universe is 13b years old (800,000 years younger). - Andrew Williams, 10:57BST, 28 February 2015.		: I found that confusing myself - it's correct, just badly written. Our universe is 13.8b years old; the Star Wars universe is 13b years old (800,000 years younger). - Andrew Williams, 10:57BST, 28 February 2015.
		+	Now, where on the graph would "The Day After Tomorrow" be placed, I wonder..? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181\|141.101.98.181]] 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 28 February 2015
Line 71:		Line 71:
	::'Twas I, in my initial (now excised) part-compilation, using the accuracy I could extract from sources like Wiki. And when I tried to add back in the 'range' element (mysteriously lost, and also wanted to add the last column for notes), I kept getting edit conflicts. Sorted now, though. I don't mind the rounding, except for it actually ''being'' a known value (a rare thing). (I had also intended to add in the notes that it actually started in/encompassed 'the present', or rather "three years ago", by the timeline of the primary narator, 'though not indicated as such on the chart.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192\|141.101.98.192]] 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)		::'Twas I, in my initial (now excised) part-compilation, using the accuracy I could extract from sources like Wiki. And when I tried to add back in the 'range' element (mysteriously lost, and also wanted to add the last column for notes), I kept getting edit conflicts. Sorted now, though. I don't mind the rounding, except for it actually ''being'' a known value (a rare thing). (I had also intended to add in the notes that it actually started in/encompassed 'the present', or rather "three years ago", by the timeline of the primary narator, 'though not indicated as such on the chart.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192\|141.101.98.192]] 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
	The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years. The formation of galaxies puts a maximum time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B. {{unsigned ip\|199.27.133.136}}		The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years. The formation of galaxies puts a maximum time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B. {{unsigned ip\|199.27.133.136}}
		+	: I found that confusing myself - it's correct, just badly written. Our universe is 13.8b years old; the Star Wars universe is 13b years old (800,000 years younger). - Andrew Williams, 10:57BST, 28 February 2015.

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 :At least according to the main Wikipedia, the year in which the traveler first meets the Eloi is known precisely.  I'm going to leave it rounded, though, so as not to cause confusion, as the the time of the furthest he gets in the future is definitely not known to more than one sigfig.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79|108.162.216.79]] 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 ::'Twas I, in my initial (now excised) part-compilation, using the accuracy I could extract from sources like Wiki.  And when I tried to add back in the 'range' element (mysteriously lost, and also wanted to add the last column for notes), I kept getting edit conflicts. Sorted now, though.  I don't mind the rounding, except for it actually ''being'' a known value (a rare thing). (I had also intended to add in the notes that it actually started in/encompassed 'the present', or rather "three years ago", by the timeline of the primary narator, 'though not indicated as such on the chart.)  [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
-The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years.  The formation of galaxies puts a *maximum* time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B.
+The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years.  The formation of galaxies puts a *maximum* time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B. {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.136}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 28 February 2015
Line 70:		Line 70:
	:At least according to the main Wikipedia, the year in which the traveler first meets the Eloi is known precisely. I'm going to leave it rounded, though, so as not to cause confusion, as the the time of the furthest he gets in the future is definitely not known to more than one sigfig.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		:At least according to the main Wikipedia, the year in which the traveler first meets the Eloi is known precisely. I'm going to leave it rounded, though, so as not to cause confusion, as the the time of the furthest he gets in the future is definitely not known to more than one sigfig.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
	::'Twas I, in my initial (now excised) part-compilation, using the accuracy I could extract from sources like Wiki. And when I tried to add back in the 'range' element (mysteriously lost, and also wanted to add the last column for notes), I kept getting edit conflicts. Sorted now, though. I don't mind the rounding, except for it actually ''being'' a known value (a rare thing). (I had also intended to add in the notes that it actually started in/encompassed 'the present', or rather "three years ago", by the timeline of the primary narator, 'though not indicated as such on the chart.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192\|141.101.98.192]] 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)		::'Twas I, in my initial (now excised) part-compilation, using the accuracy I could extract from sources like Wiki. And when I tried to add back in the 'range' element (mysteriously lost, and also wanted to add the last column for notes), I kept getting edit conflicts. Sorted now, though. I don't mind the rounding, except for it actually ''being'' a known value (a rare thing). (I had also intended to add in the notes that it actually started in/encompassed 'the present', or rather "three years ago", by the timeline of the primary narator, 'though not indicated as such on the chart.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192\|141.101.98.192]] 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
		+	The Star Wars footnote is incorrect: our universe is 13.8B, less th 13B for SW uni = ~1B years. The formation of galaxies puts a maximum time difference of 13.4B years, not 0.4B.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 27 February 2015
Line 69:		Line 69:
	Whoever wrote the date explanation for "The Time Machine" seems to have used a ridiculous number of significant figures justified by neither the book nor comic (or, for that matter, films). Even more important, the dates aren't even the right order of magnitude. I'm going to fix it, but I just thought I'd leave a comment in case the numbers actually came from somewhere. If they did, please enlighten me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		Whoever wrote the date explanation for "The Time Machine" seems to have used a ridiculous number of significant figures justified by neither the book nor comic (or, for that matter, films). Even more important, the dates aren't even the right order of magnitude. I'm going to fix it, but I just thought I'd leave a comment in case the numbers actually came from somewhere. If they did, please enlighten me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
	:At least according to the main Wikipedia, the year in which the traveler first meets the Eloi is known precisely. I'm going to leave it rounded, though, so as not to cause confusion, as the the time of the furthest he gets in the future is definitely not known to more than one sigfig.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		:At least according to the main Wikipedia, the year in which the traveler first meets the Eloi is known precisely. I'm going to leave it rounded, though, so as not to cause confusion, as the the time of the furthest he gets in the future is definitely not known to more than one sigfig.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
		+	::'Twas I, in my initial (now excised) part-compilation, using the accuracy I could extract from sources like Wiki. And when I tried to add back in the 'range' element (mysteriously lost, and also wanted to add the last column for notes), I kept getting edit conflicts. Sorted now, though. I don't mind the rounding, except for it actually ''being'' a known value (a rare thing). (I had also intended to add in the notes that it actually started in/encompassed 'the present', or rather "three years ago", by the timeline of the primary narator, 'though not indicated as such on the chart.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192\|141.101.98.192]] 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 26 February 2015
Line 68:		Line 68:

	Whoever wrote the date explanation for "The Time Machine" seems to have used a ridiculous number of significant figures justified by neither the book nor comic (or, for that matter, films). Even more important, the dates aren't even the right order of magnitude. I'm going to fix it, but I just thought I'd leave a comment in case the numbers actually came from somewhere. If they did, please enlighten me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		Whoever wrote the date explanation for "The Time Machine" seems to have used a ridiculous number of significant figures justified by neither the book nor comic (or, for that matter, films). Even more important, the dates aren't even the right order of magnitude. I'm going to fix it, but I just thought I'd leave a comment in case the numbers actually came from somewhere. If they did, please enlighten me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
		+	:At least according to the main Wikipedia, the year in which the traveler first meets the Eloi is known precisely. I'm going to leave it rounded, though, so as not to cause confusion, as the the time of the furthest he gets in the future is definitely not known to more than one sigfig.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 26 February 2015
Line 66:		Line 66:
	: even correct predictions are obsolete. Because they change into facts. Let's say on Thursday I predict it will be sunny on Friday. It is sunny on Friday. Now it's Saturday. Is my prediction from Thursday obsolete, or current? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.166\|108.162.249.166]] 05:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		: even correct predictions are obsolete. Because they change into facts. Let's say on Thursday I predict it will be sunny on Friday. It is sunny on Friday. Now it's Saturday. Is my prediction from Thursday obsolete, or current? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.166\|108.162.249.166]] 05:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
	: This comic's theme is stories who don't take place on their publication's date. Also, some of the listed stories have a (more or less) historically accurate setting.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.165\|108.162.229.165]] 12:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)		: This comic's theme is stories who don't take place on their publication's date. Also, some of the listed stories have a (more or less) historically accurate setting.--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.165\|108.162.229.165]] 12:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	Whoever wrote the date explanation for "The Time Machine" seems to have used a ridiculous number of significant figures justified by neither the book nor comic (or, for that matter, films). Even more important, the dates aren't even the right order of magnitude. I'm going to fix it, but I just thought I'd leave a comment in case the numbers actually came from somewhere. If they did, please enlighten me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.79\|108.162.216.79]] 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 26 February 2015
Line 28:		Line 28:

	::He has done stuff like that before, right? Putting the age of some books and movies into perspective, to make the reader feel old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.151\|173.245.53.151]] 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)		::He has done stuff like that before, right? Putting the age of some books and movies into perspective, to make the reader feel old. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.151\|173.245.53.151]] 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	:maybe he just wants to see what the people who transcripe it will come up with.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.173\|108.162.250.173]] 12:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

	As for writing a transcript or explanation, concerning order, I would think it would make some sense to flatten it on one axis (probably the y-axis, starting from Star Wars?) or if it is practical enough, the best might be some sort of "radial"(?) axis (is that a thing?), where the axis would be anchored at "this chart", and swing like a radar beam around from the bottom (Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and Star Wars, up through the 'x / 2x' line, through the 'contemporary' line and then the 'set in 2015' line, to finish with '3001', possibly making a small attempt to keep related works (like Star Wars) together in the listing. Any comments? -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)		As for writing a transcript or explanation, concerning order, I would think it would make some sense to flatten it on one axis (probably the y-axis, starting from Star Wars?) or if it is practical enough, the best might be some sort of "radial"(?) axis (is that a thing?), where the axis would be anchored at "this chart", and swing like a radar beam around from the bottom (Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and Star Wars, up through the 'x / 2x' line, through the 'contemporary' line and then the 'set in 2015' line, to finish with '3001', possibly making a small attempt to keep related works (like Star Wars) together in the listing. Any comments? -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)