Talk:Timeline

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Anomaly[edit]

The Ecology of the Charr states that the Ascalonians fought for 30 years after the Charr occupation, but the Ghosts of Ascalon FAQ states that the fall of Ascalon occured 250 years ago - why the discrepancy? --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing how 250 years ago would be about EN's time (unless GW2 is actually 280 years after Eye of the North), I'm guessing they just simplified the FAQ. -- Konig/talk 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ also states that "roughly" 250 years have passed since the events of Guild Wars, so 280 would be pushing it I think. Probably just factual inaccuracy or a minor retcon, definitely something worth seeking clarification on though. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, the timeline has an (Approx.) at the end to signify that the date isn't confirmed yet (so adding the ? after the date wasn't necessary). But yes, clarification will be needed. -- Konig/talk 22:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It now appears that it was a retcon so we can watch the events play out in Guild Wars Beyond. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, it doesn't. That "source" you made has no official credentials. It was a recap+a false bit about future events. -- Konig/talk 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the source? "Here’s the exclusivostatement about the upcoming War In Kryta event. There were a whole lot of ®s and ™s in this, but I’ve taken them out to protect innocent eyes." Doesn't sound like a recap to me, and I don't see how it's "false", unless you know something that I don't. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have read it, and it showed no source of it being an interview. And not an interview=recap. It looks like one of those recap articles that Massively and Kill Ten Rats does about recently released info. It most likely took the most likely incorrect speculation of the Ebon Vanguard forming Ebonhawke and connected it with Linsey's statement in an interview that the Ebon Vanguard will play an important role soon. That Gwen and Thackeray being married is also unconfirmed and even looking like it won't happen. -- Konig/talk 16:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, but the RPS article which Santax refers to mentions NOTHING about the fall of Ascalon- just the War in Kryta and the founding of Ebonhawke. In fact, according to the Ascalon City page, the survivors of the fall of Ascalon fled to Ebonhawke, so it must have been founded some time before the fall. (Unfortunately, I can't find the source for that exact bit of info, so don't hold it as truth either.)
Should we agree to remove all notes about a timeline retcon, until we have some conclusive evidence that there actually is one? (The note in particular I'm referring to is the GW1 wiki's "Guild Wars Beyond" page, mentioning it here because it lists this page as a source.) 68.118.250.100 18:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That note on the Ascalon City page states that the remaining Ascalonians moved to Ebonhawke - which since that is the last Ascalonian town, is true. And I agree - remove until confirmed. -- Konig/talk 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
It reads a possible retcon - linking to this discussion. People can make their minds up by reading it. And for the record, I believe it is a retcon, saying it's "most likely a typo" is complete speculation, and we should always go by the most recent source - which is the one stating the fall of Ascalon happened 250 years ago. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
No, Santax. If it is a retcon, it's currently a shitty one. Why? It would leave a Supermassive Plot HoleTM. Ghosts of Ascalon takes place a year prior to GW2, and (according to the FAQ) 250 years after the Fall of Ascalon. Supposedly, GW2 takes place 250 years after EotN (251, if we assume the prior is precise). That would put the Fall of Ascalon at about the same time if not a little bit before EotN. Now we currently don't have any content in GW1 that deals with the Fall of Ascalon, which means that this is currently a plot hole. Remember: the point of a retcon is to fix any (potential) plot holes (see Valve's recent update to Portal that now allows Portal 2 to happen). Retcons that create plot holes have to be re-retconned, and I believe at least ArenaNet would have enough foresight to not want to re-retcon a retcon that creates such a blatant plot hole.
Now let's assume that ArenaNet will make this a proper retcon. This means that the minimum they can do is disallow access to Ascalon City to those that have started/completed EotN. Obviously, this is pretty dumb. If ArenaNet wanted to get fancy, they would create the Battle of Ascalon with two outcomes: our characters perma-dying (which would be dumb) or (if you believe that the establishment of Ebonhawke will occur in our character's lifetime) our characters live and flee to Ebonhawke and we no longer get access to Ascalon (City).
Assuming the latter of the latter happens, we also hit another Supermassive Plot HoleTM. If Ebonhawke was established prior to EotN, that means Gwen and Keiran were married before we started EotN, in which we help Keiran court Gwen. Plus all that happens either right about the same time or after the War in Kryta, which happens after EotN. Which means that ArenaNet would have to do even more retconning, at which point the plot would become most likely too convoluted to be any good.
tl;dr: This is most likely just a simple plot hole caused by a typo or laziness, and the best way for ArenaNet to fix this is to just fix the dates in the FAQ. --Riddle 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It may well be a typo or laziness. But that's speculation, and we need to stop ignoring stuff that gets put out by assuming incompetence on the part of ANet. We don't get to decide what is a typo or what was a mistake, we just have to document what we see. And as for your Supermassive Plot Hole, the date is not precise - we have no precise dates yet, all we know is that GW2 happens around 250 years after GW1. We know it can't be before or during GW:EN or the War in Kryta, because it would have been mentioned. So we know it must occur after GW:EN, but around the same time period, so there are no longer any continuity issues. And the point of this retcon would be to fix a potential plothole - without it, the fall of Ascalon would be about 30 years after GW:EN, and so almost 40 years after the searing - making our characters quite old indeed (not to mention Adelbern!). Moving it forward to just after GW:EN means that our characters can participate in it as part of Beyond, so actually it's directly comparable to Valve retconning Portal to allow Portal 2 to happen. ANet is modifying GW2 lore to allow some of it to play out in Beyond. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You say that the dates aren't precise, but you are arguing that the date the FAQ provided is pretty close to precise, thus a retcon. 230 years is close enough to 250 years that many people would just generalize it as 250 years.
EotN happens in 1078 AE, placing the Battle of Ascalon closer to 20 years after EotN, and closer to 30 years after the searing. This would make Adelbern in his early 90s. While most likely not realistically capable of fighting, keep in mind he's a descendant of King Doric, who was king for almost a century and probably at least in his late 20s to early 30s when he was crowned. Adelbern's got strong genes.
So no, the Fall of Ascalon doesn't have to happen about the same time as EotN. It doesn't even have to fall under the scope of GWB. There's no continuity problem with the Fall of Ascalon occurring 20 years after EotN. --Riddle 17:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
250 years is in no way 'pretty close' to 230 years. Regardless, hopefully we'll have confirmation soon so we can get this sorted out. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Check again, I didn't say 250 years was 'pretty close' to 230 years. I was saying that 230 years is close enough to 250 years to be generalized as 250 years with largely no one caring (except for you and me :P). Regardless, let's wait till ArenaNet's response. --Riddle 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Usoku's victory is before Zhaitan's awakens but the event is above the second event. + Need reordering events in function of dates --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.126.158.49 (talk).

May i just add the Lore-In-game is all off a bit apart from the Order of the Whispers, who have documented everything safely.Becuase LA historians=Wet. Ascalon=Fluffy Invation. Kamadan=undead Central (Or something.might need to re-read lore.) and Canthan areas="In a Land Far Far Away" --Neil2250 , The Zoologist User Neil2250 sig icon5.png 20:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm?[edit]

ok so when it says GW2 present day and the awakening of that one dragon(K...) does that mean the dragon awakened after present day or is that what just happened when we start playing? Sorry, im a little confused. --Amanda(: 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its just generally the same year. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 19:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so basically when we get the game they will talk about the dragons and the awakening of the last one.--IcyyyBlue(: 22:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The Movement states "just a few years ago, a dragon awoke..." yatta yatta referring to Kralkatorrik. the first book takes place 1 year before the game and when Jeff and Matt were asked if a dragon will make an appearance, they laughed. My bet is that Kralkatorrik awakens in the first book. Also, these dates are approximations - i.e., these individual events happen at these dates, give or take up 5-ish years. -- Konig/talk 02:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I can't wait for the books to come out im total going to read them(:----IcyyyBlue ♥♥ 03:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible actual time for GW2's year?[edit]

"In a landmark decision, with the asura casting the sole dissenting vote, the symbols of Old Krytan were combined with the ease of use of Old Ascalonian, and the New Krytan alphabet was born. The year was 1105 AE.

Over the past 220 years,..."
220 years after 1105 AE would be 1325 AE, 3 years before the current suspected year of GW2's year and exactly 250 years after NF. Perhaps this is the year of GW2? -- Konig/talk 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable assumption, but I'm not entirely sure about it.--Corsair@Yarrr 05:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It gives you the year that Villem Caraga‎ wrote 'Cultural diffusion...'. Unfortunately this is not necessarily the actual year the game is set. -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 05:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
But it does tell us that is the earliest that it could possibly be. We have a definite lower bound on our date. Zones us in a little bit. I just hope it doesn't take place exactly 250 years, that's a little cliche for me.--Corsair@Yarrr 05:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe we didn't notice this earlier. I completely agree there, Konig. Decimus started his historical revision from the ascension of the goddess Kormir (1075 AE) and that +250 years clearly point at 1325 AE. Nice observation.
Now, I suggest we should rework all the dates, and add the specified years to 1075 AE (maybe with the exception of the rise of the dragons - since Primordus "planned" his awakening in 1078 AE). What do you think? --Thalador Doomspeaker 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead then.:P--Icyyy Blue User IcyyyBlue Elementalist Blue.png 14:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Ghosts of Ascalon timeline[edit]

And here I was going to be a bad ass editor and add this, and then when I hit the edit button, I went "Meh, Huginn, let the wiki fairies do their work". It's not that I couldn't do it myself, it's just that it will probobly be better if someone with wiki experience did it ;) --Huginn 20:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We have GW2's start date then. It starts 1 year after Ghosts of Ascalon, which starts in 1324 AE. Thus, GW2=1325 AE. As I said above. -- Konig/talk 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Important events during and before GW1[edit]

Should we add them? Specifically meaning, the Ghosts of Ascalon book has a timeline as shown here which (may) hold the most important events prior to GW2's time. Not that there are some during and prior to GW1. Now, I'm not saying "copy this timeline into the article" but rather: When GW2 comes out and a timeline appears in the manual, if it contains dates during and before GW1 (which I find to be very likely), should we put those dates and event onto this timeline? -- Konig/talk 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Defining which ones to add and which ones not might be a problem. But those perhaps related to our Guild Wars 2 at release could be considered? Perhaps these:
  • 205 BE: Humans appear on the Tyrian continent. <-- 'One giant leap for mankind', and a record of how long they exists. But could not be added because of fairness towards the other races. (norn,asura and charr)
  • 100 BE: Humans drive the charr out of Ascalon. <-- Should be considered, the first real struggle in history with the humans and charr. Which would evolve into later events.
  • 2 AE: Orr becomes an independent nation. <-- Yes, and no. Importance --> No. Because of "Orr" as title/name --> Yes.
  • 358 AE: Kryta becomes an independent nation. <-- Add one ^, get one free.
  • 1070 AE: The charr invasion of Ascalon. The Searing. <-- As to 100 BE, this should then also be added. (Add one, get one free.)
  • 1071 AE: The Sinking of Orr. <-- part of the 'fall & rise' of "Orr". I think yes.
  • 1075 AE: Kormir ascends into godhood. <-- A god is god, a human transcending to godhood is rather unique. So, most likely yes. But no, because this happened in Nighfall with sunspears, which isn't entirely Tyria related. Meaning that Tyria probably wasn't all to aware of what was happening, let alone know who 'Kormir' is. (Or am I wrong here?)
  • 1078 AE: Primordus, the Elder Fire Dragon, stirs but does not awaken. The asura appear on the surface. The Transformation of the dwarves. <-- Yes. Dragon = GW2.
My thoughts. Though, as a GW1 player, I wouldn't mind if they aren't even added. (I hope the sum isn't going to ruin the discussion.) ge4ce 07:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Important events, sure. I wouldn't have a problem with copying the entirety of GW's timeline into the GW2. Important events are important events, regardless of the time it is viewed from.--Corsair@Yarrr 07:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather not do a "pick and choose" kind of thing, what I meant was whether or not we should copy the books' and/or the game's complete timeline even if it takes thing prior to or during GW1. And if so, just the game's timeline or the game's and the books'? Just thought it'd be best to get this out of the way. -- Konig/talk 10:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Judging by the Dragon Festival, and the quests allowing foreign characters to reach Istan, Nightfall was an event that happened to everyone, not just Elona. Kormir "saved" the entire world from it. And it has been 250 years. She is now revered as the Goddess of Truth. In regards to adding all of that to the timeline, I think we should, it's not like GW1 had no impact on GW2 at all. EiveTalk 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I vote for putting both GW1 and book timelines in. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.81.49.132 (talk).
I'm not so sure about adding all of the events from GW1 here, but the book notes specific events for a reason. EiveTalk 00:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm personally debating between using just GW2's timeline (when the game comes out), or using that alongside the three books' timelines (should the other two have timelines). -- Konig/talk 01:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Keep stuff from 1078 onwards here, imo, and anything before 1079 (or whatever happens to be present day currently in GW1, since it looks like it might be 1080 next year), that can go on GWW. The two articles are interlinked, and the article even says that it's a direct continuation of the GW1 timeline. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the interlinking in this case is to not have two exact duplicates. however, some events are more important to GW2 than others - such as the sinking of orr, the searing, Kormir's ascension, and who knows what else. ArenaNet also has said that in GW2 we'll learn more of the history, thus we'll be having things in GW2 being known which are not in GW1 and thus would make little to no sense on the GW1W timeline. Either way, imo either it should be copying the books' and/or GW2's manual's timeline(s), or simply including events after GW1 (which means events post 1080 AE due to GW:B - thus no 1078, 1079, 1080 events being mentioned). -- Konig/talk 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I would argue that we should record events after 1078 because Eye of the North and Beyond are meant to bridge the gap between GW1 and GW2 - I mean, in GW:EN the main enemies are the minions of Primordus, after all (and let's not forget that was supposed to be the year that the elder dragons originally awaken), and everything that happens in Beyond will be implicitly designed to be directly relevant to GW2. There's also probably a case for starting with the ascension of Kormir, but I think starting from 1078 would probably be the strongest starting point. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
But more than the events of EN influence GW2 greatly. Such as noted above. The events of EN and Beyond are made specifically to build up to GW2's lore, but GW2 will be influenced by much more, and will reveal historical facts as well. You're arguing against yourself in a way - "The two articles are interlinked, and the article even says that it's a direct continuation of the GW1 timeline" implies that we shouldn't have anything on this timeline if it occurs in GW1 - for the most part, I agree, but if we have anything from GW1's time(line), we should include the official timeline. Otherwise, keep it all out because, as you said, we connect the two for a reason. There shouldn't be half and half, imo. I merely asked because I don't want to do half and half and was on the fence of which to do - except for you, Santax, the consensus seems to be "include the official timeline and nothing more for GW1 and pre-GW1 events." -- Konig/talk 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Canthan calendar and Dynastic Reckoning[edit]

Are the Canthan and Elonian columns even necessary, given that the majority of events during and leading up to GW2 take place in Tyria? I would suggest we merge into a single column with a guide to converting to CC or DR at the bottom, noting Canthan and Elonian events in Mouvelian format until there is a significant enough number of them for them to warrant their own column. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer that, if we remove the columns (which are not unnecessary, nor are they necessary), that we do it as XXX AE (YYY CC, ZZZ DR). One column, three dates. Making a note, especially at the bottom, is not a good idea imo. -- Konig/talk 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Responding to a very old conversation here, but I think that removing the canthan and elonian calendars from here is a good thing. Things were more vague in 2010, but right now, the other calendars don't seem to be used in the current game. Additionally, even if the elonian and/or canthan areas are added in an expansion (and that's a nontrivial assumption), we don't know if they'd stick with the confusing multiple calendars thing. And last but not least, the Mouvelian calendar is used in various places, such as both official books and the blog. I don't think "but it was like this in guild wars one" is enough reason to keep three calendars up here, especially if only one of them is ever used. And this page is linked from the main page now. -- NilePenguin 17:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that we've only seen Mouvelian calendar dating because that's the calendar used in Tyria. The other two are used in their respective continents and are not used in Tyria (so you wouldn't see them used in Tyria thus in the initial GW2 game - but they do exist, and they are used, but we just don't see it used - I wouldn't doubt that those of Elonian or Canthan origins use their respective calendar dates when not conversing with Tyrians). Konig/talk 18:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can be sure that they do exist and are used. Calendars do go into disuse and get replaced. As long as we have no confirmation that they're still there, we shouldn't assume that they got carried over from gw1 (and through 250 years of ingame history), and they're not warranted a place in here in my opionion. Now if part of the game actually uses other calendars to refer to major events, or if that happens in an expansion, that's obviously a whole different story. -- NilePenguin 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Northern Wall Construction[edit]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to label 898 as the year the Wall was completed? According to GoA, construction took 900 years, beginning "several generations" after the charr were driven out. This seems to place the beginning of construction around 0 AE. Saying thw Wall was "erected" in 898 AE makes it sound like construction began and ended within that year. BrettM 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It could, though it could also be read as "the Great Northern Wall fully erected" - though just love the implications of such a word. -- Konig/talk 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Transformation of the Dwarves[edit]

This is a minor thing, I just didn't want to get in a revert war over it or anything. I know that race names stay in lowercase, but GoA's timeline capitalizes both 'Transformation' and 'Dwarves.' I assumed this was because it's an event, which is why the book capitalizes the Charr Invasion of Ascalon as well, and why both should be capitalized in this timeline too. Fabala011 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Peace/truce between charr and humans[edit]

1324 is a very important year not just because of Dougal venturing into the crypts, but because the Claw was recovered and a long lasting war ended in a truce. I don't know if the wiki only lists things as they are listed in official Anet released time-lines, but adding the signing of the truce as a major event during 1324 seems more than appropriate. RazoR39999 12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing says the truce came about. The wiki lists more than what's on the official Anet timelines (see the Usoku and Joko notes - or the GW1 timelines). But again, all we know is that the Claw of the Khan-Ur was taken out of the safe. Nothing more (not even knowing whether or not the Claw leaves Ascalon City tbh - the ghosts can come back while Dougal and company are raiding the place - highlight to see spoiler to the very end of the book). -- Konig/talk 13:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
They said in multiple interviews that the truce is in action. I'm not saying that it's necessarily because of what they did with the Claw (tho it's the most likely scenario), but by the time in 1325 when the game begins the truce is a done deal. You can't argue that. RazoR39999 15:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you link some of the said interviews that the truce exists in GW2 and that it isn't simply "in action" (as that could mean working for the peace truce). -- Konig/talk 17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The latest interview to cover it was this - http://www.tentonhammer.com/guild-wars-2/video/jeff-grubb/ghosts-of-ascalon At about 1 minute in Jeff says that the charr and humans have a very tentative truce and that GoA is in part the story of that truce. RazoR39999 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In GoA there is a very tentative truce as well, though it isn't an official truce there is one still there. We can't say if the truce is officially announced in 1324 AE or 1325 AE. -- Konig/talk 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
According to that newest interview on GW2Guru the truce is 1 year old, but there's still opponents to it. Maybe a line like - "truce talks between charr and humans have officially started" or something could be added to 1324 now that we know more. RazoR39999 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

between gw1 and gw2[edit]

How many in game years between the end of gw1's last campaign/expansion and gw2? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.68.59.100 (talk).

247. That Sounds Risky | 18:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Guild Wars Beyond continues after the end of Eye of the North, however. I doubt it will expand beyond end of Krytan civil war and Winds of Change, though, unless something happens in Elona. There is a bit of room expanding GW1, still. Mediggo 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


247 years? That sounds like a long enough time to get my gw2 character born and raised and all in time for release. I never played gw1 and not knowing anything from it is a sort of barrier to gw2 for me. But 247 years means I can not know anything from GW1 and still enjoy GW2, right? :D --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.68.59.100 (talk).

That's right. You can play GW2 without playing GW1 and still enjoy the game. What is important will be mentioned in the game. However, you'll probably enjoy and appreciate it more if you play GW1. I've seen lots of things on the side that allude to GW1, making jokes for those who played both games (especially veteran players). Konig/talk 20:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. I just hope that there wouldn't be any moments wherein the game tells a story assuming I went through all of GW1 because that would suck. Because like in movies, I don't want to walk in late missing the epilogue or an important plot point because I didn't play GW1. Hoping for the best. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.68.59.100 (talk).
simple solution play gw1? the game isnt that hard if you play thew it normally especially if you grab heroes.- User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 09:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded and played through 5mins of the free trial and it feels empty compared to all of the videos I've seen of GW2. I'm just going to imagine my Norn Warrior was born way after the Winds of Change and before the events of GW2. Does that sound right according to the timeline? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 111.68.59.100 (talk • contribs) at 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

Sounds good. GW2 characters are like 3 to 4 generations removed from the events in GW1. To fully appreciate the back story of GW1 is going to take a long while. You might be better off just reading the lore articles on the website and the wikis. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 03:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
More like ten generations or so. Jink 13:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you all for your time and answers! See you when it launches!

Present Day?[edit]

The timelines in the Arena.net books Ghost's of Ascalon and Destiny's Edge both say the Sylvari awakened in 1302 and the race descriptions on the official website say they have been in Tyria 25 years. Would that not make present day 1327? Arena.net doesn't say 'about' 25 years so I'm taking it as a firm time, besides why would they estimate instead of just saying 23 years if it is truly was 1325? Just my two pennies.

That's an oddity in the timelines and the constant statement of the sylvari's birth. Some believe the timeline is noting when they're first met by other races, though that too doesn't make much sense if their first meeting other races were the asura and the case with Melamodies, which would put the secondborn as around at the time which happened 6-7 years after the Firstborn were woken up. Anyways, ANet loves to estimate and flating year differences - you constantly hear "200 years before the Searing" for events like when the titans were found by the Burnt warband, or when Shiro Tagachi first died, etc. And you also get 250 years for the time between any GW1 event (Searing, end of the Guild Wars, Cataclysm, Foefire, Nightfall, Rite of the Great Dwarf, etc.) which the only one that occurred 250 years exactly prior to GW2 is Nightfall.
Anyways, Ghosts of Ascalon happened 1 year before GW2. That makes it 1325 AE. This is confirmed fact. Konig/talk 21:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It would seem possible that the timeline is moving on in "real time". Several vanilla characters speak of coming or next spring, and we've had Halloween and Wintersday and all that. It didn't really go like that in GW1 but it seems more likely for GW2. An anon IP already seems to have edited that to change 1326 as present day, even if there's no official source to that(?). Mediggo (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know what to do with this[edit]

So i found this: http://imgur.com/7SSjw in game today and just looking at the numbers its completely wrong how could g.o.l.e.m be established in 1294 a.e? that's years after the events in gw1...- User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 09:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Buh, dah, wha... that makes no sense. It was around in 1078 AE, how can it be established 31 years prior to GW2 and be an excavation site as well? That's obviously a... rather big typo. Not even sure how they typo'd that... Konig/talk 09:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder If the Asura have a different measurement of time/years, I mean they have there own language. Also this still is in game and still hasn't changed.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 01:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Present day (again)[edit]

Is there any reason to support that present day in gw2 is 1326?? There is no proof that this calender uses our own. We know from GW1 that the timeline isn't following real time (factions same year as prophecy's and nightfall 3 years after). I think we have to assume it is still 1325. Also, unless we get more info bout the actual date, it is unlogical to list everything thats happening. We got the living world overview for that. So with respect to everyone who contributed to the year 1326, I'm removing that all together cause there is no proof that these thing actually happen in 1325, 1326 or later.Ranique (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that this has been motivated in the update note by the IP who did this. His argument was that wintersday always marked the end of a year. This is not really true. Wintersday is celebrated once every year. The actual date of can not be confirmed until we see something like e.g. a memorial plague saying that the battle for gragstead took place in 1326. Untill we got a new benchmark we only know that everything that happened after the start of GW2 happened in 1325 or later.Ranique (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a note, but in this interview Angel McCoy states that the in-game calendar (Mouvelian calendar) was changed to a 365 day calendar, and that the connection between the Mouvelian calendar and the real life calendar was a practical one. To me that makes it seem as if they want the in-game calendar to mirror ours, and it would now be 1326 as it has been 1 year since the clock started. Vahkris (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course that interview also says that the schools of magic were merely styles instead of being locked into place via the Bloodstones, so I don't really know. Vahkris (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I realise I've left this a long time, but I'd point Ranique to the Wintersday page, where it says "Wintersday is an annual special event which celebrates the Tyrian New Year according to the Mouvelian calendar". As such it's safe to assume that the year has rolled over (in game), aside from that I couldn't tell you when the events happened (certainly I imagine Flame and Frost was shorter than the months it took). I'd say we could use the Queen's Jubilee as another point of reference (given it was celebrating the 10th anniversary of her coronation), but we don't know when she was crowned.... 21:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sylvari Inconsistency[edit]

I noticed the timeline has them awakening in 1302, and the main events of the Personal Story taking place in 1325. The thing is, in 1325, the Player Characters came on the scene as well, and in the Sylvari creation it's stated, "Twenty Five years ago my people first appeared in Tyria. The Pale Tree flowered, and the Firstborn awakened." I did the math for the current year, which is allegedly 1327, and that would mean that right now it's been 25 years since they first awoke. The events of the personal story should've happened in the year 1327, making the current one 1329. This would allow the Player's Sylvari to have still been able to participate in the Living Story events. Or, they should awaken in 1300. Then the current one would also work.

If i'm missing something, by all means correct me, but if not I think someone should edit the page.

Missing...[edit]

Just a comment: I haven't played GW2 for about 6 months, essentially since March or April, for a number of reasons. I know Lion's Arch got destroyed, or something. WTF else has been going on. A recent history timeline is needed (or more visible, I didn't see anything like one, and nothing useful along those lines comes up when you search on "Timeline") for people to use to catch up on general events in the game.

If something like this exists, where, please? If not, I suggest its creation. And if so, perhaps some more consideration of "how do I locate this thing?" for people returning after time away.

Thanks. OBloodyHell (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Living World season 2 might be what you're looking for. Be warned, it has spoilers. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 01:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Zinn and the Creation of Rata Novus[edit]

We met the Asura Zinn during War in Kryta, which took place during the Beyond events, in 1079 AE. It's after that, that Zinn was exiled from the Asuran Community and left off to create Rata Novus. So we should be able to pin-down the creation of Rata Novus within those years, no?

Meaning that Rata Novus lasted less than a century =/ --Edgar.Doiron (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our "happened within these years" gap is very large. We know that asura can live up to 120 years but we don't know Zinn's age so we can't even narrow it down to a case of "between 1080 AE and <(120 - (Zinn's Birthyear - 1080)) + 1080> AE". However, we also know they were well established by the time they fell and by all indication, when they allied with the Exalted (which given they came to be around the time the Zephyrites did would point to them building Tarir and hibernating within 50 years after GW1 - little later than when the dwarves fully turned to stone at the latest). So we can reduce it down to just "between 1080 AE and 1130 AE, most likely on the earlier side of the spectrum" but that's not efficient to denote on the timeline article. Konig 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Updates[edit]

When will the timeline be updated in the game The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.54.120 (talkcontribs) at 13:52, 7 June 2016‎ (UTC).
I hope they update the timeline soon for the living world . Now that mordremoth gas been dealt with. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.54.120 (talkcontribs) at 18:00, 7 June 2016‎ (UTC).

There is no timeline in the game. The closest thing is the year marking on the story journal - so we won't get more of that until LW season 3. Konig 22:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Feedback 2016/07/19[edit]

The timeline states Southsun Cove was "discovered", yet I have found no evidence that it was not known about beforehand, with the obvious exception of it not appearing on maps. The only reference to a discovery is that it was included in the "Lost Shores" patch. I find it difficult to believe an island of this size would not have been discovered in the ~100 years since Zhaitan's rise or even prior to that, assuming it did not emerge over the years (given the unique wildlife here, one could assume it has existed for quite some time, being more than 100 years.)--110.142.3.225 14:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The entire plot (or pre-plot) was about how Canach and a team was sent out to explore the island and document it. The reason we had to track Canach down during The Lost Shores was because no one but him (and what little remained of his team) knew where to find Southsun Cove. The western (and larger) island is volcanic, so it's actually relatively new, where it isn't covered in karka webbing, and Zhaitan has prevented a lot of sea faring. Furthermore, not all maps are scaled to size - Southsun might be, but all other maps definitely aren't. I think we're meant to believe there's far more open water than we see on the world map. Konig 16:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tarir in the timeline[edit]

In the timeline it is stated, that Tarir was built by the Forgotten and Exgalted in 1228 AE. That is a mere 100 years from the present. In the article about Tarir, it is stated, that it is an "ancient city, built centuries ago". That does not fit each other. 80.136.132.167 09:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This happens when I don't double-check others. Tarir was built about 200 years prior to the current date in-game. I will note that the original lore we got on Tarir did imply that it was built even before GW1, before we knew where it was or the more exact lore of the Exalted. But it was created around the forming of the Zephyrites, and it was from the Zephyrites that the Exalted were chosen from - the Zephyrites formed ~200 years prior, in the last days of the dwarves as the successors of the Brotherhood of the Dragon. Konig (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)