Talk:Timeline references in Star Trek
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
[edit] Forum:Time... time... what is time?
Currently, on several forum posts and talk pages, there is a discussion on the fact that our timeline, based on the no longer accepted Star Trek Chronology, is incorrect in various places and internally inconsistent. If we were to "correct" our timeline exactly, it would have statements placing all of TOS/TAS vaguely between 2265 and 2270, TNG before and after 2364, and DS9 and VOY, and the TNG films some years after 2364, with at one of the last VOY episodes in the year 2378 (Neelix should've stuck to his own history).
I half-propose, and this is tricky, that we should accept the Chronology dates at face value, the ones for the series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY) at least, and work in references made to other events that are relevant from the episode date. We can note the inconsistencies on the page, in background, and link to a page describing how Star Trek kept the timeline vague for bla bla reasons, so Memory Alpha currently did this.
According to the Chronology:
- TOS takes place, roughly, 200 years from the airdate.
- TNG takes place from 2364 to 2370, with every 1000 stardates covering a year (41000s cover 2364, 42000s cover 2365, etc.)
- Star Trek: The Motion Picture takes place in 2271 (This was prior to the conflicting "Q2" reference). We should peg this down to 2272 or 2273 (I prefer the latter). This is a debatable point.
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock take place in 2285 (Star Trek II takes place in March, because of Kirk's birthday).
- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home takes place in 2286 (although this may have to be changed based on the later discovered birthday for Kirk).
- Star Trek V: The Final Frontier takes place in 2287 (err... um...)
- Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country takes place in 2293.
- The TNG films are placed according to their stardate.
We don't have to use the Chronology for every date (especially heavily inconsistent ones like the movies), but once we pin down a reasonable "chronology" for the episodes, we should "stick to them" and centralize them somewhere.
So basically, we should stick to the Okuda stardate rule (almost) no matter what the episode said, and work out the TOS and TOS film ones.--Tim Thomason 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm okay with that. In fact, that's how I suggested dates to be handled in the canon policy, but that part was never officially accepted; basically, it was a test addition to the policy. Or... something. Yeah. Anyway, I think just going based on the Chronology is fine for now until some canon dating comes along... if it ever comes along. --From Andoria with Love 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
How do we know that Star Trek II and Star Trek III are both set in 2285? Khan says that it has been 15 years since he was marooned by Kirk, which would set it in 2282. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks. --24.65.161.244 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that in Star Trek II, Kirk is given a bottle of Romulan ale, dated 2283. Why a Human year would be on a Romulan drink is beyond me, but people basically take that to mean that the film must be set after 2283 on the Human calendar. 2285 was chosen by the Star Trek Chronology because in Star Trek Generations, James T. Kirk – still believing he was living in 2293 – stated he had returned to Starfleet nine years prior (2284) after some absence. The Chronology therefore speculated that Kirk had been retired from Starfleet sometime between the events of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, that he returned in 2284, and that the events of Star Trek II took place the following year. So, there ya go. I don't really buy into that whole thing, but that's what the Chronology did and that's what we've been going by... until recently. Now, we're trying to figure out whether or not to accept the dating in the Chronology on MA, as you have seen above. So... there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've got everything from TNG S6 to Nemesis in order by Stardate and then by episode number when a stardate is not given. See my "Complete Episode List?" thread over at the reference desk.--Cyno01 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)--
- What does that have to do with this discussion? --Alan 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've got everything from TNG S6 to Nemesis in order by Stardate and then by episode number when a stardate is not given. See my "Complete Episode List?" thread over at the reference desk.--Cyno01 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)--
- The problem with that is that in Star Trek II, Kirk is given a bottle of Romulan ale, dated 2283. Why a Human year would be on a Romulan drink is beyond me, but people basically take that to mean that the film must be set after 2283 on the Human calendar. 2285 was chosen by the Star Trek Chronology because in Star Trek Generations, James T. Kirk – still believing he was living in 2293 – stated he had returned to Starfleet nine years prior (2284) after some absence. The Chronology therefore speculated that Kirk had been retired from Starfleet sometime between the events of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, that he returned in 2284, and that the events of Star Trek II took place the following year. So, there ya go. I don't really buy into that whole thing, but that's what the Chronology did and that's what we've been going by... until recently. Now, we're trying to figure out whether or not to accept the dating in the Chronology on MA, as you have seen above. So... there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apocrypha section
Apocrypha often references Earth years and can be included in its own section to contrast with canon. Some works that reference Earth years include Star Trek: Early Voyages, the Starfleet Academy and DS9 young adult novels, The Kobayashi Maru novel, the games Star Trek: Legacy, Star Trek: Tactical Assault, Star Trek: Conquest, Star Trek: Klingon Academy, etc.
- Are you proposing such a section for this article? --31dot 20:28, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
