Talk:Timeline of Encantadia

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Mercury McKinnon in topic Timeline of Encantadia

Article title, scope

edit

Interesting article, but I think the title should be changed to something more encyclopedic. How about something like "Timeline of Encantadia"? (That would seem to be the naming convention from looking at Wiki's list of fictional timelines.)

Also, interesting as it is, an article devoted just to the alterations to Encantadia's history is too limited -- there are only a handful of known changes -- and most likely will not grow (I don't see the Encantadians messing with history again any time soon).

Changing the title to "Timeline of Encantadia" would give the article a bigger and (I believe) more useful scope. The article can then give an overview of the history of the various Encantadia chapters, including how Mulawin and Mulawin: The Movie fit in. Alternatively, the article could also discuss problems with the timeline where the various bits don't meld. Of course, these subtopics would be in addition to the discussion of changes to Encantadia's history that the article has now.

So what do y'all think? --Mercurio 10:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and moved/renamed the Etheria's History Meddled article to Timeline of Encantadia. --Mercurio 14:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Timeline of Encantadia

edit

Hi. I've renamed the Etheria's History Meddled article to Timeline of Encantadia, so as to expand its scope to discuss all matters related to Encantadia's history. I think that aside from a chronology of major events, and the changes to history that resulted from the Sang'gres time-trip to the Etherian era, the article can also discuss timeline-related problems (such as inconsistencies).

Please note that the Chronology of events section is meant to be an outline of major events and NOT a detailed retelling of every episode. It would be helpful to see other fictional timelines, such as those for Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

Please help build the article up with the above in mind. Thanks. --Mercurio 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply