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.
TOS Order Edit
This site list the episode in Stardate Order. I've begun a study of Stardates, and it reinforces my conclusion. that Logs in TOS, are not always the stardate the episode occurred. Some of the logs were done after the fact. One such example is "Mudd;s Women", is The first log is given a Stardate of 1329.8 the second log, 1329.1 and third, 1329.2. The third log was done at the time it was played, because Kirk gives that Stardate for the hearing. But since the first log is .8 it is obvious that it was logged while they were on there way to the Rigel system. But for the benefit of the viewer it was played at the beginning of the episode.
Worst are episodes like "The Enemy Within", "The Man Trap" amongst others, refer to events not only in the past tense, but to facts that Kirk did not know like, "Unknown to any of us during this time, a duplicate of me, some strange alter ego, had been created by the transporter malfunction." I think this proves my theory that Stardates are not the order to list the episodes occurrence.
I think Episodes should be listed on this site in production order, that is the order the characters evolve, in which the sets change. Conceder this a petition to change the order the episodes are listed. --TOSrules 05:51, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- I agree wholeheartedly. I've never liked the way episodes are sometimes listed in stardate order, even worse in air order. Production order is the only thing that really makes sense.Ryan123450 08:29, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- Shockingly, I'm going to agree with TOSrules for a change, on a basic level, anyway - the episodes should be listed in production order. Alex Peckover 08:31, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST)
- I agree also. I've been studying personnel on the set and costuming, settings and effects for the first half of season one, and there are definite visual cues that would be disrupted by airdate order.. (which is totally inaccurate of the producer's intentions, its simply the order NBC decided to play the episodes). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 11:28, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)
- Ok, I know this has little to do with the order in MA/en, but in MA/de we used the production order. Otherwise "Tomorrow is Yesterday" would be the first episode, "Immunity Syndrome" the second, "Court Martial" the third and so on... some station's broadcast order isn't really a wise criteria -- Kobi 12:00, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Wow, we got a consensus on this issue. I'm surprised, but I think most fans prefer Production order, and a good number of them like air order. But given the difficulties I think we all agree Production order is most likely the way they occurred. I would not do the change. I'd leave the final okay, and change to be done by the people who set up this server. After all it is theirs. --TOSrules 01:22, 3 Sep 2004 (CEST)
- Don't forget, this is a wikiwiki. The changes can be done by anyone! ;-) Translation: I don't have the time to go back and change the order of the episodes myself. I originally listed the episodes based on the listing found in the Encyclopedia. I was under the impression that they were already listed in production order. But anyway, isn't there room for both interpretations? A separate page can be whipped up with links in a different order. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 10:57, Sep 6, 2004 (CEST)
- I agree with listing the episodes in production order indeed. For TOS at least. I wonder why this discussion is on this talk page... :S -- Ottens
I put it on this page because it covers all the basses. It includes all the years of TOS. Although I disagree with the exact years, even my calendar states that it takes place in the 2260's.
I am not trying to bring that up as the issue, only the order. But if you'd like to know my reasoning, it stems from what I call my EE Calendar. , I place EE 0 at the year of 2233. It stem it from "Journey to Babel" being in the year 2266 as per TNG "Sarek". I place Babel in EE33. Oddly enough, I figure Star Trek II to be in 2279. --TOSrules 23:01, 6 Sep 2004 (CEST)
I find myself having to go to other sites to find the air order. This is a nuisance. I'm going to add information about air order to the individual episodes (but I'm not going going to change how it is listed here). Hopefully, no one minds. Jm307 02:27, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- actually I almost think the page for TOS should be air order, but if you need that info go to www.tv.com --TOSrules 02:39, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- How about something like this:
| Previously produced episode:|
"The Enemy Within"
| Episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series|
TOS Season 1
| Next produced episode:|
"The Naked Time"
|First episode aired|| Next aired episode:|
I do think the page Star Trek: The Original Series should be air order. The calendar has to be in Production order because it does appear to be the event order. But that other page is the show, so an air order is preferable. --TOSrules 18:44, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I would support the idea of having a separate note and list for airdate order, because, as per our long ago decision not to refer to airdate order in our timeline, because the airdate order is completely irrelevant -- so i dont think there would be any need to change the TOS page either -- the separate list TOS episode airdates serves that purpose for those who wish to track the data. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:45, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Previous command for Kirk? Edit
I have removed the following pending the results of this discussion:
- Prior to commanding the USS Enterprise, Captain Kirk commmands a lesser class of spaceship. (TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before")
- According to The Making of Star Trek, this spaceship is a destroyer-class starship.
Where in "WNMHGB" was it mentioned that Kirk had a previous command? There is a line by Elizabeth Dehner, stating to Kirk that "Gary told [her] that [Kirk and Gary had] been friends since [Gary] joined the service, that [Kirk] asked for him aboard [Kirk's] first command," but she could have easily been talking about Gary's assignment aboard the Enterprise. Is there some other reference I'm missing? --From Andoria with Love 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Here's my answer. According to Dehner, Mitchell served alongside Spock for years (this implies at least a couple of years). With this, we know that Mitchell joined the Enterprise at the earliest in 2363. Kirk didn't command this starship in this year. So, he might have been given the command of an unnamed spaceship on which he asked his old friend to join him. Mitchell declined, choosing a tour on duty on the Enterprise or staying aboard the Enterprise. It's not clear which. Furthermore, there was the culture of Star Fleet depicted in the original. Ships of the Starship Class were the best and the most advanced of the fleet, and were given to commanders who had proved themselves. They wouldn't be given to first time commanders.--Airtram3 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is... that's all speculation based on one viewer's interpretation of statements made in the episode. There's nothing in the episode that specifically stated that Kirk was previously in command of another ship. For all we know, Dehner's line regarding Spock and Mitchell's service together was referring to their time prepping the Enterprise for her next five-year mission, under the command of Kirk. As for Starship Class vessels only being given to first time commanders, that's also mere speculation not supported in canon (this is Kirk we're talking about). I'm not saying I don't agree that there is a possibility that Kirk had a previous command, I'm just saying that there is no die-hard proof; just an interpretation of the dialogue. --From Andoria with Love 07:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not alone in my interpretation. And what of the interpretation of the show's creators as recorded in the book The Making of Star Trek where they gave Kirk a previous command? Are they wrong too?--Airtram3 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, in the note appended to the historical note, I write that Dehner differentiated this first command from Kirk's current command. Would you care to explain this? (And I would like to offer two rebuttals to statements in your last post - I never ever said that starship commands were given to first time commanders, in fact I argued the contrary, and I believe it is you now who is speculating when you said Spock and Mitchell preppped the Enterprise for Kirk's eventual command.)--Airtram3 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have been thinking over this debate, and the methods employed by both parties in resolving this debate. I have thought of a compromise solution. Hopefully, this will please you as well.--Airtram3 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Some questions: 1.) Where/when did Dehner differentiate commands? If it's the "first command" note, I already pointed out above that she wasn't necessarily talking about another ship. 2.) Was the note in The Making of Star Trek specifically referring to this quote? If not, then it's likely just another piece of background information that never made it onto the screen (i.e. United States of Africa). If this is the case, then we simply cannot attribute it to that line of dialogue just because it seems to fit. Anyway, those are my questions; now, in response to some of your other comments, I was aware I was speculating regarding the Spock/Mitchell note, but for one that's speculation on the talk page to prove a point; I'm not including it in the article. Two different things there. Also, in your previous reply, you stated that "Ships of the Starship Class were the best and the most advanced of the fleet, and were given to commanders who had proved themselves. They wouldn't be given to first time commanders." I reiterate that this is speculation not supported by on-screen facts. Basically what I'm saying is that it has not been directly established that Kirk had a previous command and we cannot state such as fact or canon. Since the dialogue may be interpreted that way, we could make it a background note, but I just don't see how it could become part of canon. --From Andoria with Love 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- If there are no other opinions from other members on the community, I am ending the discussion here. As for the entry, I have erased it thus ending the discussion where it began.--Airtram3 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)