Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
I think Dehner's and Mitchell's birthdates are specified, as their personnel files also gave their ages, for example 23 for Mitchell (and consequently his birth is already listed under 2242. Kennelly 08:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that is incorrect. I'll be removing it.
- Mitchell and Dehner obviously weren't in their early twenties in the episode -- i've added notes to the images about their personnel files that the ages aren't specified to be current. -- Captain M.K.B. 12:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is possible that the medical records were written when they had 21 or 23 and are not actualized as of 2265. Sally Kellerman (Dehner) was 29 years old and Gary Lockwood (Mitchell) 28, which takes in the 2230s. Maybe we could also estimate other birth decade for other characters according to their respective actor's age (human characters only) - Philoust123 13:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I see no reason why the ship's computer should show an outdated record. Certainly a 23rd century computer constantly updates its records, so a file displayed in 2265 giving age 23 means this person is born in 2242. And we really shouldn't go the way actor's age=character age (or if we do we should do it exactly and nail for example Dehners birthdate down to 2236. Kennelly 13:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- There's no reason for a ships computer to show an outdated record -- but they did ;)
- For some reason, whomever envisioned that sequence though that computer record storage would be like a microfiche slideshow -- looking at old records as they originally appeared.
- Kennelly, its obvious that Dehner and Mitchell weren't in their early 20s -- and that there is at least the possibility the records were outdated. i think this is clear cause for leaving the facts in the "uncertain" version. -- Captain M.K.B. 13:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be careful with things being "obvious" on a SciFi-Show. Still, I think it should be added to 2242 and 2244 in an BG part that it's possible they were born these years, considering my "belief" those records were updated is as valid as yours that they were not. Kennelly 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- "And we really shouldn't go the way actor's age=character age" => I just talked about an estimation ("birth decade") in order to integrate the other humans character's birth in the chronology. We can always determinate when a Human character is in his 20s, 30s or 40s... (even if there are some exceptions like the 33 years old Cochrane, Picard...). This should not be listed as a canon information but rather in a note section : "According to their respective actor's age, these Human characters may be born during this decade : ..." - Philoust123 15:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
...and here is a prime example of when being fans makes people get carried away. MA is supposed to be an encyclopedic style right? There's nothing else going on here except speculation. "Assuming Kirk is older because he's the instructor", yeah sure, instructors CAN NEVER be younger than their students. "Assuming the stardates fall into the same decade": maybe it was just on the cut-off point? Besides that, TOS is infamous for not giving a sh*t when blurting out random numbers like stardates and warp factors. "the person who wrote the scene obviously meant..." How do you know? you don't do you. "The person looks about this age" Have you giving any thought to advanced medical technology? Apart from all that, and I know a lot of you don't like to hear this, it's just a TV show! Some things won't add up. We all want to and desperately try to twist it so that it's nice and cannon again, but sometimes a mistake is just a mistake. If you can't verify, don't add something as fact. OmikronWeapon (talk) 21:22, May 28, 2015 (UTC) (just trying to give a neutral point of view, no offense intended)