Revelation screwed up the timeline and story of the first movie something wicked, and now we need to change pages to deal with that. The first movie took place in 2004, with the Great Fire occurring in November of 1974. Sharon is 9 years old (confirmed by the official novelization and Chris's comments to Sister Margaret) when the movie takes place, meaning she was created in 1995, and Alessa has a rough birthdate of 1965.
However, Bassett has stated that Revelation takes place 6 years after the first movie, which would make Sharon 15, not 17/18. Going by Bassett's statements and the timeline of the first movie, Revelation would take place in 2010. Judging by Sharon's age, it would be 2012/2013. Even stranger, the official website for Revelation suggests that the events of the first movie have been changed to 2006, rather than 2004.
I think the timeline for Revelation should be left ambiguous, seeing as Bassett refuses to answer my questions on the subject matter, and there is much disagreement on dates. What is known for sure is that Sharon was born in 1995 according to the original timeline, and so I feel that age and date should be left on her page and in the timeline. The same with Alessa, who would have been born in 1965, given her age at the time of the burning.
Gans has confirmed that Sharon and Alessa became one person at the end of the first movie, but this is retconned in Revelation. In Revelation, Heather is just the good side of Alessa, with the rest of Alessa remaining in Silent Hill until they rejoin on the carousel. Some have suggested that Rose's meddling with the Seal may have forced the soul to split again, but I see no evidence of that.
I believe that the ending of the Silent Hill section of the character pages should state that they recombined, and that the Revelation section should mention that this was retconned by Bassett. I do not believe that Gans's story should be erased simply because Bassett didn't understand the first movie (or just didn't care).
In the original script for the first movie, it's directly stated that Dahlia and Christabella are biological sisters, and this is backed up by the set designer stating that the painting in the church was made to look like an ancestor of Christabella and Dahlia, Dark Alessa referring to Christabella as "family" ("But the rest of the family didn't love Alessa), Christabella referring to Dahlia as "sister" ("You're weak, dear sister, you always were"), and the fact that Alice Krige wore blue contacts, which would make her eyes match Dahlia's and Alessa's.
In Revelation, Claudia refers to Christabella as her "dear sister". This means Dahlia, Christabella, and Claudia are all sisters, and that Alessa and Vincent are cousins. The most likely explanation is that Bassett didn't understand the relationship between Dahlia and Christabella in the first movie, though it can be theorized that Claudia was ashamed of Dahlia and so never told Vincent about his relationship to the Gillespies.
I think the article should state something to the effect of, "According to the first film's canon, Character X is related to Character Y".
What do you guys think of how we should deal with all this retconning nonsense?