Non-Canonical Dates Edit

I respect the wiki convention but respectfully disagree that it has no place in a comprehensive examination of in-game lore; to the contrary, while there is of course drift of a small fashion between servers (the traditionally-cited rationale for not making in-game dates canonical) it serves to illustrate a relatively consistent chronology of the EverQuest II universe. I will abide by the wiki administrator's preference, of course, but academically speaking I think it's somewhat myopic not to include these citations when they can be clearly documented. There are those lore-heads in the community, myself included, that have invested significant time and energy in examining this chronology, and I think it has some very interesting aspects to add to discussions like this one. Again, not being argumentative; just sayin'! Sesketh 02:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but the point is not that in-game dates vary by server. It's just that they have no official meaning. If the in-game year was X when a certain expansion was released, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. It's been bugged in the past, where it was stuck at 3700 (which is before the shattering). The point is that SOE has stated that the in-game calendar is not canonical, it's just something to look at. (After all, human characters created at launch would be elderly or dead by now). Now, if there is *anything* in game that references a particular date (eg if a SOE book references the year 3789) then that's fine. The chronology is absolutely fine, it just cannot be based on player observations using the in-game clock. There needs to be some corroborating source. --lordebon 02:29, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Taking my admin hat off for a moment, I think I'd agree with Lordebon. SOE has repeatedly said that the in-game clock is anything but reliable. That having been said, the loreheads (I'm a fringer myself) really have done some amazing amount of speculation on this matter. My gut tells me that there is some even ground we can achieve that would allow us to write the article in such a way to include both. Could we work on it that way? Maybe it would involve wording like "if we were to follow the in-game clock, then X, but that presents difficulties because of Y." Not the best example, but you get what I mean, right? I think their logic is worth mentioning, even if SOE doesn't use the clock.--Kodia 00:43, January 27, 2010 (UTC)