This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. CC7567(talk) 02:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
As some of you are already aware, the recently released Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide: Updated and Expanded included an updated section with information from Star Wars: The Clone Wars. To get to the point, we now have the first canonical timeline, officially published, that orders the episodes since the series premiered in October 2008.
Here is the introduction to the book, written by author Ryder Windham:
This new edition of Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide contains many new entries, including images and information about the games The Force Unleashed and The Old Republic, and the animated television series Star Wars: The Clone Wars. As most fans of the TV series are aware, numerous episodes did not air in chronological order. For example, the Season Three episodes "Clone Cadets" and "Supply Lines" take place before Season One's premier episode, "Ambush." With a great deal of input from Keeper of the Holocron, Leland Chee, who maintains Lucasfilm's continuity database, The Ultimate Visual Guide presents the still-unfolding saga of Star Wars: The Clone Wars in a never-before-published chronological sequence.
Sounds good, right? Yay, even?
But wait, there's MORE!
(And it's not really good news.)
Up until now, we (or at least I, and thus, WP:TCW) has been using my unofficial timeline to order TCW episodes for the site. In the new timeline in The Ultimate Visual Guide, there are two problems. The first is that it's rather difficult to actually read what the timeline is, since there are random blurbs over the wide pages. And the second is that it knocked some rather significant canonical markers aside, for example placing "Slaves of the Republic" (Season Four) in line with some early Season One stuff.
Twenty-four pages of the updated The Ultimate Visual Guide are dedicated to The Clone Wars. Here is the entire timeline, as best as I can manage it, reading left to right on the pages. To those who might blame me for releasing this borderline copyrighted material: sorry, that's the basis of Wookieepedia. And we really, really need it right now to solve this problem that wasn't our fault. And if you disagree, blame the Encyclopedia for linking to us.
Only episodes and media whose events are directly or indirectly referred to are listed. Parenthesized after each episode are all of the events that occurred in the listed episode. Bolded events specify which events are directly or indirectly referred to in The Ultimate Visual Guide. Note that I'm linking to the article names, which may or may not be official.
To make the list a little easier to read, the original airing order is listed with each episode.
At first glance, I'm sure the above timeline looks pretty good—it did for me. But as it settles in, there are episodes missing and major issues still remaining. Below is a list of the episodes and/or media that were not mentioned at all. Stricken episodes refer to the episodes that are part of story arcs in the above timeline and can therefore be placed with the above episodes, but the unstricken ones cannot be placed as of yet.
These issues remain from the new timeline, mostly due to the missing episodes but a few from the timeline itself. I apologize if the following section sounds rather harried, but the inconsistencies need to be identified so that we can start to think about how we can address them.
Okay, I realize that the Battle of Ryloth was a prolonged engagement, as it was shown over four episodes ("Storm Over Ryloth," "Innocents of Ryloth," and "Liberty on Ryloth" from Season One, and then "Supply Lines" from Season Three). But can we really assume that twelve episodes (yes, twelve, I counted) take place between "Supply Lines" and "Liberty on Ryloth"? Does the Republic really take that long to mobilize an invasion force?
"Holocron Heist" and In Service to the RepublicEdit
In Service to the Republic depicts Wolffe's loss of his eye to Ventress, so it therefore must precede "Holocron Heist," in which we see a scarred Wolffe. Yet The Ultimate Visual Guide's order of the two is the opposite; the publication puts "Holocron Heist" first. Since both are printed on the same spread, this may be due to the fact that I'm reading the pages wrong (the order is rather hard to decipher from the placement of text and images), but this issue still remains.
Per Dave Filoni's comments in Star Wars Insider 125, Season Three and Season Four have been moving forward in the timeline according to airing order, and the "DEPTHS OF EVIL" section makes that pretty clear. But seriously, what happened to "Slaves of the Republic"? Somehow (due to the way that similar-topic episodes were grouped, I'm assuming), it got lumped in with Season One, which definitely isn't possible given the midway–Season Three model upgrades to Anakin Skywalker, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Ahsoka Tano. I think it would be safe for us to assume that "Slaves of the Republic" and the rest of its story arc can be placed back with Season Four, but that's debatable as well.
Well, the episode guide for Shadow Warrior indicated it was meant to precede the Mon Calamari arc, but this timeline follows the airing order. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 13:18, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible that there is some confusion between the different media for Slaves (i.e., the original comic depiction of events could very easily fit into that point on the timeline). Even more speculatively, swapping Slaves with Supply Lines in the timeline "solves" both problems by putting Supply Lines closer to Ryloth and putting Slaves at one of the earliest points in the series (which corresponds with the comics' IRL publication beginning prior to the series proper airing). Admittedly this only works if you (incorrectly) presume the comic depiction of Slaves is the more canonical. And that may be what's happened here, one typo in the wrong LFL memo could be all it takes. But this is all just mad raving anyway and has no place in determing ordering on the site. DD97Which bear is best? 21:12, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
I'm just beginning to pick apart the errors from the new timeline, and simply by looking at everything that was left out, we're going to have questions that The Ultimate Visual Guide can't answer. Can we assume direct chronology between story arcs as listed in the new timeline? Do we automatically list battles as "Previous" and "Next" in infoboxes, even though there might be gaping holes in chronology due to the episodes and media that weren't included in the new timeline? What those episodes and media that were left out—when will they get integrated into the timeline, too, in a later source? (I understand that there always have to be cuts from the final version of publications, but that doesn't solve the problem of the missing media.)
For now, I strongly urge everyone to exercise patience before updating TCW chronology across Wookieepedia, until we can come to a community consensus about how to address the new timeline in terms of the questions and problems that I just listed.
First of all, I would propose that we try to verify with Lucasfilm if the timeline as posted above is correct. The placement of text and pictures in The Ultimate Visual Guide isn't always clear, and while I did my best to glean the intended order from the pages, we need to ensure that it's correct as it appears. This would probably entail contacting Leland Chee, though I'm not sure how much success we'll have given the scale of what we're asking.
Second of all…in terms of the inconsistencies that are listed, in addition to ones that are potentially forthcoming, I'm not sure how much we can do. The Ultimate Visual Guide is a canonical (and the most recently published) source, and our right to assume errors only goes so far. Until we know for sure that we are supposed to treat this new timeline as canon, I'd like everyone to start thinking about how we can stay true to both the source material that's been around since 2008 and this new source material from The Ultimate Visual Guide.
It's a lot to take in, I know. You're welcome to use this section to post your thoughts and suggestions about how we as a community can tackle this problem. Again, I cannot require everyone to refrain from updating TCW chronology in articles across the site, but I strongly urge everyone to exercise patience. With an issue this large, we have to work together about tackling it instead of being source-happy and making revisions just because the material is new and attractive.
If I still have your attention, thank you for staying with me. Post away about what you think we can do. (I.e., please show me that I'm not the only one who cares about TCW chronology on Wookieepedia. :P) CC7567(talk) 07:15, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I saw that book at the store and almost bought it. Now, I feel I need to buy it just to help out. This is going to be an awful, wonderful mess to clean up and I am none too eager to start. Gotta tear up a carpet this weekend, first. :P Trak NarRamble on 07:57, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I'm none too eager to rip up a carpet, either, as it's packed full of everything that turns my asthma on "maximum" and leaves it there. Correcting this timeline is looking to be much more enjoyable than the carpet, as at least I won't need a dust mask and my inhaler! Trak NarRamble on 08:03, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, besides the ones that seem obvious or confirmed, we don't have many TCW battles in chronological order, in terms of listing battles in the "previous," "concurrent," and "after" parameters in the infoboxes. It would be more work for us if we just list every battle in the infoboxes and those placements could be most likely entirely wrong. I know this guide is canon, so I don't think we should ignore this crazy timeline entirely. Could we state errors in a bts in the affected battle articles? Ideally, I would say we should wait until they actually sit down and organize the majority of the material, but who knows when that will happen. JangFett(Talk) 15:24, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I think yeah, mentioning errors in the Bts would be a good idea, though do we assume that the "errors" are errors, or intentional? (I suppose that'll have to wait until we confirm this timeline.) I do remember Filoni saying at one point that they had a timeline of episodes and they would eventually release it, but I'm inclined to believe that the Ultimate Visual Guide's one isn't it, since Filoni wasn't mentioned in the introduction like Chee was. CC7567(talk) 18:13, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
CC, your last sentence there is concerning to me, as it makes me think that there's a decent chance that this timeline will get outright discarded when Filoni is ready to release his, so I'm inclined to agree with Jang here. Let's stick with what we know to be true (individual story arcs) for now, just mentioning errors like Wolffe's eye in the BTS, and wait for a better and more complete timeline before we do a mass overhaul. —MJ—HolocommSaturday, May 5, 2012, 19:02 UTC
Yeah, the potential of another (possibly dissimilar) timeline is what concerns me—we would need to completely overhaul the Wook's accepted chronology just to reflect The Ultimate Visual Guide's timeline, and we would probably need to do it again for Filoni's. It concerns me how preemptive that The Ultimate Visual Guide's timeline appears, as does the lack of confirmation that Filoni had input with this timeline. I mean, Chee's word is official, and Windham's publication makes it official (for now), but it would have been nice to have all hands on deck to prevent an even bigger mess from being made. CC7567(talk) 22:58, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Everyone, please continue weighing in. Your input really counts, even if it's just a simple "Yes" or "No" to disagree with some of the proposals here. CC7567(talk) 22:58, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I know it will be a huge pain in the ass to adjust things to reflect the new guide, and an even bigger pain to do it again if Filoni's timeline is different. But that "if" is a really big "if". And we can't really unilaterally assume that the Windham/Chee chronology is wrong without someone official specifically saying to disregard it. I feel like the only recourse that is in line with our established policies is to accept the new timeline and note any issues or possible conflicts in the BTS. If Filoni's timeline (if he really does ever release one) is any different, well then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But this is the best and most official timeline we have right now, and we need to accept its canonicity, regardless of how much work that may entail now and in the future. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:05, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, but as far as possible conflicts resulting from blurbs that are on the same page, but appear to be out of order because of a left-right reading of the page, we can take some liberties there. Unless it is very clear which section or blurb comes before another, we should use context from stories and other information to try and order them with the most sense possible. For instance, with the Wollf issue, we don't have to assume that just because the blurbs are placed in a certain order on the page that they occur in that order. If you look in other non-TCW sections in the book, you'll see some non-chronological ordering of blurbs as well. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:08, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Trayus's sentiments here --- canon can't be disregarded based on the assumption that it might be trumped in the future. This is something with which we have to roll, even if it's annoying and has a few errors here and there. Menkooroo 23:31, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even all that sure that we should be rushing to adopt this. Yes, it's in a canon source, and yes, it's the most recent source. But when you've got a source that's completely omitting episodes, placing others in spots that are either demonstrably wrong or else completely nonsensical logically, and written so badly that we need to do the interpreting to guess what it's trying to say....eh.
As ardently as I'll defend TCW, this arrangement is pretty absurd. Honestly I'm not sure we should bother to do anything with it at all until Filoni and co. put out their own timeline (at which point notes from this nonsense can be thrown into BTS). They did say in the past that they would put out their own revised timeline close to the end of TCW's run, and if GL's "about 100 episodes" hold this will be the show's last year, we have to be fairly close. — DigiFluid 01:39, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the introduction specifically says that the arrangement is LFL and Chee-approved. And that it's the first official chronology to be released. Is some of it strange? Yes. Is some of it annoying? Sure. Is some of it confusing? Absolutely. But by no means does that mean that we can just decide to ignore it. It is what it is, love it or hate it. That's the nature of Star Wars, and—more specifically—TCW. We have to work with the most official information we have, and that is this new chronology. Obviously, if there are clear errors, like the information presented on the Battle of Alderaan in the GGW spread (see the notes in the final paragraph here), we can place the information in the BTS. But a few errors and confusing placements don't—and can't—discount the chronology as a whole. We cannot ignore the new placements—again, they are, sadly, official as official can be. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 02:45, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
And yet, if we follow it by the strictest of canon, omitted episodes have no placement. Do we simply assume they didn't happen? I don't care if they call it licensed–this is a bad, unworkable list. If a source says something that's demonstrably wrong (say, repeatedly calling Luke Anakin's father instead of son by accident), that's not something that's on us to interpret. That's something which is verifiably and demonstrably incorrect; as is so much about this list.
I understand what you're saying, Trayus, I really do. I respect and even like the canon structure that SW lives and dies by; I even vigorously defend TCW from its detractors for this very reason. But as best I can tell, this nonsense simply cannot be reconciled with (fictional) reality. Even with the LFL stamp, I can't see any compelling reason for us to bust our asses to reconcile the irreconcilable just because someone at LFL/whoever wrote the book couldn't be arsed to do their homework. — DigiFluid 03:50, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's quite as catastrophic as you're making it out to be. Omitted episodes' placements can still be based on other evidence, as we've always done. The compelling reason for us to reconcile it is because it's canon, and it's our job to document canon. We don't get to pick and choose what's canonical; when something is outright stated to be Leland Chee approved (and by extension, in the Holocron continuity database), then we're at it's mercy. That's how canon works. Menkooroo 04:27, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, it would boil down to a lot of tedious grunt work? Seems right up my alley. I'll see how soon I can get to the book store. Trak NarRamble on 04:32, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
Just to add on to what Menk was saying—there are plenty of source books that omit information from books, comics, television shows, and more. That doesn't mean that there's some sort of canon conflict—the author simply didn't find room or intentionally chose not to include them. The new guide doesn't presume to say that any omissions indicate that the omitted items are no longer part of the timeline; it simply means that they're not included in that particular presentation of the official timeline. There's not a conflict in their not being present. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 05:44, May 6, 2012 (UTC)
Do the clips shown during the narration sequence at the beginning of each episode have merit in determining the order? For example, the episode "Bounty Hunters" shows clips from the Second Battle of Geonosis. Would this imply that it takes place AFTER the "Geonosis" episodes? If so, this visual guide is incorrect. Mando26 08:01, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
The "Newsreel" has never been an indication of canonical placement—oftentimes, it only looks back to episodes that were produced earlier, not necessarily ones that took place earlier in the timeline. CC7567(talk) 14:03, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
A good example of that would be the Rookies newsreel. It contains clips from Cargo of Doom, an episode that was produced prior to Rookies (#1.14 vs CoD's #1.13). JangFett(Talk) 14:11, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
Not to alarm anybody, but Chee is going to be talking about the TCW timeline in the Official Star Wars Blog in the future. Here's the first entry. He didn't screw up our timeline. We're still fine for now. NaruHinaTalk 18:16, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
(Seeing as it was his to begin with in the updated The Ultimate Visual Guide. :P) CC7567(talk) 18:19, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah? xD Well, then we shouldn't have anything to fear. Coolie! NaruHinaTalk 03:03, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
All hope is officially lost in the universe.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 06:26, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
With Season Five right around the corner, and more material about to start hitting the site, we need to move on this decision. After thinking about it more, it really is our duty to implement and heed published material, even if it's not what we hoped for—that's the mission of Wookieepedia. I do realize that the errors are numerous and some episodes even got left out, but when it comes down to it, it isn't our choice what is canon and what isn't. It's Lucasfilm's decision, and we should simply be following it.
Provided that there are no major objections within the next few days, I'm going to start updating the TCW chronology across the site. First of all, however, I'm going to take Trayus's advice about taking liberty with the page placements (i.e., the "Mandalorian Intrigue" spread really should not be splitting up the Mandalorian arc with Deadly Hands of Shon-Ju). I'll post a reorganized version of the timeline above when we're ready to start. Second, the fact that Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Shipyards of Doom was left out of the timeline might be a hint as to the future canonicity of that comic in regards to "The Citadel"—a Bts note can be made. As for the Battle of Ryloth issue, we'll figure that out as we go along.
The main problem that we need to discuss before we begin updating articles is the material that got left out of the new timeline. Personally, I don't know whether it would be better to leave "Next" and "Previous" fields blank in other battle articles where applicable (i.e. leaving the Battle of Kadavo's "Next" blank to accommodate the missing episodes 4.14–4.18, and subsequently leaving the "Previous" field in the Battle of Dathomir blank), or to simply fill all battle articles in based on the new timeline and ignore the unlisted material altogether in terms of chronology. Please weigh in with your opinions on this below.
Once we get started, while everyone is encouraged to help out, I cannot stress enough that this is not something that should be taken lightly, or something that should be updated with speed over quality. Updating battle articles goes far beyond simply listing battles in "Next" and "Previous" fields. The actual articles need to be checked to see if any parts of the new timeline are relevant to be mentioned in the articles. It is tedious, but this should not be treated as "grunt work"—updating articles is pointless if enough attention isn't paid, because then others will have to go through the updated material with a second wave of checking for errors left behind.
Finally, even though Season Four and beyond is apparently being placed in chronological order (i.e. airing order), we cannot assume that said order is canon without confirmation. After the new timeline is implemented, we still need to wait for new episodes to be placed in the timeline instead of simply assuming that airing order is the way to go.
If anyone has any further concerns, I would encourage you to post them here. Please make sure to weigh in on the issue about the unlisted material. CC7567(talk) 04:20, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
Just one little thing I want to flag, in case anybody's already got their heart set on Season 4: the trivia notes (third slide) for Shadow Warrior indicate that the episode is meant to take place before the 3-part season premiere, but it was placed where it was in order to allow for a more action-heavy season opener. I notice that this is laid out wrong even in our current Previous/Next, so I thought I'd mention it so it doesn't get missed. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 12:51, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
The thing about that one (see here, no. 49) is that SW.com seems to have been in error in this case, because Rish Loo and Captain Tarpals are both seen in "Gungan Attack," and yet both die in "Shadow Warrior," meaning that the latter has to come after the former. CC7567(talk) 04:45, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
That's interesting. I hadn't yet tried watching the four episodes in the alleged chronological order so I hadn't even noticed the death discontinuity. Good catch. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 12:38, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Re: the "previous" and "next" fields, I'm leaning toward filling them in with whatever is confirmed as being the next closest event in the new timeline. Even if an "eventually" needs to precede it, I think it's best to list whatever is definitely known rather than nothing. Leaving it blank would seem a bit off. Menkooroo 21:22, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I'm waiting until I get the book in my own hands next week before I comment on the whole situation, but for right now, I agree with Menk's point. Use "eventually" if need be; that is what we do with succession boxes, after all. —MJ—Training RoomSaturday, June 9, 2012, 23:50 UTC
I'm with Menk and MJ on this. We know at least some of the chronology, so we may as well plug it in where we can. As far as the season 3.5-5 chronology is concerned, hasn't it been stated that they are canonically chronological from since around "Nightsisters"? I thought that came from Chee and Filoni themselves. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 05:59, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, if there's been previous confirmation of this, no reason it can't be synthesized with this new timeline. If the new timeline doesn't contradict said confirmation, then we shouldn't discard it. Menkooroo 16:47, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
I agree, using "Eventually" would be a good solution, at least for now until we (hopefully) get a more comprehensive timeline. One question, though: how would we list a "Previous" battle that took place some time after the preceding one? Regarding the Season Three/Season Four order: there has been previous confirmation about the "moving forward" thing from Filoni, but we still need to wait for direct confirmation before assuming direct chronology between story arcs, as we've always done. I'm not suggesting we discard anything or completely ignore the "moving forward" idea; it would just be good to keep note of it to implement in the future, once enough information is provided from source material. CC7567(talk) 07:27, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
"how would we list a 'Previous' battle that took place some time after the preceding one?" I'm not following what you're saying there. Can you try to explain it again? (On a side note, the book has finally come in at the library, so I should be able to look at this timeline myself within the next day or two.) —MJ—ComlinkThursday, June 14, 2012, 14:24 UTC
Let's say that given the above timeline, the Battle of Dathomir occurs some time after the Battle of Umbara (most likely with more Season Four events in between, but we can't assume that due to a lack of direct clarification). So, in the Battle of Umbara's infobox, in the "Next" field we would enter "Eventually the Battle of Dathomir," because that's what the source says/implies due to story arcs. However, what would be the opposite of that—what would we list in the "Previous" field for the Battle of Dathomir's infobox? There's no concise way to say it, so that's what I'm wondering before we start moving forward with implementing this timeline. CC7567(talk) 20:30, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
"Eventually the Battle of Umbara". Simple as that. If you go back in time you will eventually reach Umbara, so the term works both ways. And we already use it both ways in succession boxes. BTW, I have the book in my hands right now and am typing up my thoughts on the whole situation; look for them within the next couple of hours (probably sooner). —MJ—HolocommSaturday, June 16, 2012, 20:41 UTC
OK, after reviewing the book myself, here are my thoughts:
As to the problems above (in no particular order):
Battle of Ryloth: If the bureaucracy got involved and slowed everything down with red tape, then yes, I can believe 12 episodes between "Supply Lines" and "Liberty on Ryloth". So that's really a non-issue with me.
Wolffe's eye: First, "Holocron Heist" and In Service to the Republic are not "on the same spread"; rather, they are nine pages apart (pages 64 and 73, respectively). You may have been thinking of something else when you typed that. Anyway, the book's idea of chronology here is clear, but Wolffe's eye says otherwise. There is also a continuity conflict with his appearance in "Grievous Intrigue" (events of which are placed on page 68). After looking through all of the continuity indicators on your unofficial timeline, I see no reason that we can't, and I recommend that we, assume the guide is in error here and move In Service to the Republic before the two aforementioned episodes until we get a more solid official timeline. This would of course be unofficial (and thus In Service to the Republic would not mentioned in "Previous"/"Next" fields), but avoids laughable continuity errors in our prose (namely in Wolffe's article). Basically, I think going unofficial instead of accepting the blatant error is the lesser of two evils here.
Missing stuff: It's understandable that things like novels were excluded, since after all this is a "visual" guide. So I wouldn't look too far into those. Likewise, the occasional missing episode may simply be due to not being able to fit everything into a limited amount of space, and the large amount of Season Four missing may be the result of not having finalized visuals ready in time (we don't know how far in advance of publication the layout, etc., had to be finalized for this book). I think it's best to simply order this stuff in appearances lists and prose based on our best judgment, but of course without assuming direct chronology outside of story arcs (in other words, exactly what we've been doing for nearly four years).
Slaves of the Republic: WTF? This really does seem to belong with the Season Four stuff, but can we ignore it? Honestly, I don't think so. A change in character models is an aspect of the fiction itself (AKA artistic license), not necessarily a change in-universe, and in the absence of an in-universe reason that it must go with the rest of Season Four, we have to accept the guide's placement of it as canon.
As for the whole thing, I support taking it as canon (with the exception of the error with Wolffe's eye mentioned above), but urge caution with the haphazard way events are sprawled across the pages. If there is even a shadow of a doubt as to what order events on one spread come in, and it's not possible to determine the order based on irrefutable continuity indicators (such as the known order of a story arc), then said order should be considered unconfirmed absent official confirmation.
In short, for the most part we can accept the timeline as is, but be wary of blatant errors in the timeline and unclear order. —MJ—War RoomSaturday, June 16, 2012, 21:27 UTC
I agree with the majority of what you're saying, MJ, but regarding Slaves of the Republic: I'm compelled to say that the change in character models in itself is a reason that it should remain with Season Four. Filoni has said multiple times regarding Slaves that the story had to be altered from the comic for the show because of changes that had happened during the course of the show, including Ahsoka's growing maturity and the absence of Ventress as Dooku's enforcer. Given all of this, I don't see a reason why the guide should be a reason to place it all the way back in Season One, simply because the guide seems to be in error, or did so just for the sake of simplicity in regards to grouping similar topics. CC7567(talk) 06:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Since there haven't been any major objections to implementing this new timeline, I'm going to start implementing it within the next few days. Before then, I'll be posting a finalized timeline here to make sure we're all on the same page. It will still be from the book, but it will take into account the discussed conflicts and the input from everyone above regarding placement on the pages, as well as all the unlisted battle and events that will have to be left alone for now. If anyone has any more well-reasoned objections to implementing the timeline, now is the time to state them before we start. CC7567(talk) 06:51, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
I'm almost ready with the timeline to post, but something quick: Star Wars: Darth Maul—Death Sentence 1 is set in 20 BBY, which means that from now on, Season Five and beyond is going to be in the last year of the war. Given the extremely close relationship between "Massacre," "Bounty," "Brothers," and "Revenge" to Darth Maul—Death Sentence, the 20 BBY date can be extended to the Season Four finale as well. CC7567(talk) 06:19, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. The above is true, save for that it's 20 BBY, not 19 BBY. We still need to use "c." 20 BBY from now on because we don't know when 19 BBY will start. CC7567(talk) 08:04, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
Here's the table documenting the order in which the battles need to be organized, per The Ultimate Visual Guide. Bolded names indicate that the placement is directly from The Ultimate Visual Guide: Updated and Expanded. Reasons for the placement of other battles is listed with them. CC7567(talk) 08:04, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
For the record, below is a listing of all officially placed media that adheres to and does not contradict the new timeline from The Ultimate Visual Guide. Episodes from Season Three, Season Four, and beyond that were not mentioned in the new timeline, but have not had their direct chronology contradicted, are listed and struck in the following list. Confirmation of the struck episodes' placement is pending.
Don't bust your asses on this just yet. Looks like Chee has started running a series on the official StarWars.com blog to give an official episode chronology. Doesn't look like he's assigning dates yet, but it's looking like we're finally seeing the official flow of episode order.
Chee was the one who created the timeline in th Visual Guide. The blog is being monitored, I'm sure, but the Visual Guide timeline is official and there's no reason to think he'll contradict himself. NaruHinaTalk 23:28, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
The order of episodes listed here is the official one. It's the same one that Chee developed for The Ultimate Visual Guide, albeit with some additions. CC7567(talk) 00:54, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, one of the more recent updates removed the Kadavo story from its inexplicable placement during Season 1. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 19:45, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
With the publication of The Clone Wars: Darth Maul: Shadow Conspiracy, it seems like the rest of the specified 21 BBY dates from the Star Wars Annual 2011 are being overridden. Shadow Conspiracy (c. 20 BBY, per Star Wars: Darth Maul—Death Sentence 1) places the events of "The Academy" (originally c. 21 BBY from the Annual) "two years" prior, meaning that either Shadow Conspiracy should be considered to take place in c. 19 BBY or "The Academy" should be moved up to c. 22 BBY. I'm not inclined to believe the former, so I think it would be prudent to reflect the latter in the timeline.
I've changed the above timeline to reflect this; if anyone else has any other ideas, please bring them up. As always, anything to do with The Clone Wars chronology and dating is guesswork these days. But quite honestly, I can't think of a better way to implement the new Shadow Conspiracy information without entirely uprooting what Leland Chee has said and what was printed in The Essential Reader's Companion. (Though it does seem reasonable to assume that the Star Wars Annual 2011's 21 BBY dating of TCW is no longer accurate, given the 22 BBY dating from The Essential Reader's Companion.) CC7567(talk) 08:14, January 1, 2013 (UTC)