Voyager Fifth Season EndEdit

Due to 11:59 taking place on April 22, 2376, I have moved 11:59 - Equinox, Part I to 2376 and left everything before 11:59 in 2375. -- 10:22, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to support such a position? It would have been a nice idea to discuss such a massive change before making it.--31dot 10:49, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know as well, since this affects a few of my ongoing projects to list everyone on some casualty list. - Archduk3talk 13:34, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

The episode 11:59, as stated above. -- 18:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact quote or description of the scene? I only ask because these episodes have been dated this way for some time, and while that does not necessarily mean it is correct, it seems odd that this escaped notice until now.--31dot 18:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
The year isn't given specifically, however the date is at the end by Neelix. And since the episode takes place in the later part of the season it is VERY certain that it is 2376, and can be supported that Janeway states the exact amount of time being in the Delta Quadrant in Timeless as "four years," which was early in the season. Also there are no stardates (with the exception of Relativity) to contradict. AND we have the last three episode of season 7 as 2378 even though they have 2377 stardates. This is the same scenario here. There was a discussion on the 11:59 discussion page that supported moving 11:59 - Equinox to 2376 but it was just never carried out. I understand there is speculation here but it is very, very, reasonable speculation and also based on a system used for season 7's last three episodes.-- 07:54, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. In the case of the last season we have a character(Neelix) making reference to an event which we know the specific date and year of, and are thus able to date those episodes. The "four years" comment could have been an estimate(we all do that) and we don't know how the stardate system works(which might let those many episodes occur within that first part of the year) but I think there is enough here to leave it alone unless there is a large consensus against it.--31dot 11:36, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The four year, two month, 11 day mark in "Timeless" (Janeway does get specific) from 2371 is what strongly supports it, because if it was 4/22/2375 by 11:59 then everything from Timeless to that episode would only span three months at most! Then suddenly skip to December for Equinox? Lol, that'd be a bit of a timeline problem...-- 18:45, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


I'd also like to propose adding DS9's "The Dogs of War" and "What You Leave Behind" to 2376, since The Dog's of War's stardate is almost the same as "Relativity's". -- 06:10, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I fear that all of this just leads to even more speculative content regarding the exact year an individual episode takes place in. This has been an ongoing debate for years now: There is no clear indication that one earth year is exactly equal to 1000 stardate units, and (even if so) no indication which day of the year an XX000.0 stardate falls on. I agree with the idea that, if one episode has been stated to take place in year X, following episodes should not be assumed to take place in year X-1 - but that's about it. Fact is, we just don't reliably know the exact year of many episodes, and perhaps we will eventually find a way to list the episodes without making it look as if we do. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:00, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should only use stardates as a secondary means of dating, since it is obvious they're not written in stone anyway if you look at 11:59 and Homestead. There could be others, as well, but I can't name them off the top of my head... -- 16:38, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

With what being the primary means? Stardates are used in nearly every episode. -- Cid Highwind 19:05, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Basically abandoning the SD 51xxx = 2374, 52xxx = 2375, etc. mentality that has been prevalent and and go with official sources and/or Gregorian dates mentioned on screen, unless the official source is contradicted onscreen. And use stardates only to fill in "gaps" so to speak. I strongly agree with your rationalization that we don't know if SD xx001 falls on Jan. 1st and Dec. 31 on xx999, but there are some people who don't and I think that has affected some of the data on the site.

I believe we shouldn't use year dates unless it was stated in the episode itself or with something like "that was 6 months ago" and that episode stated the current date. It's all way too speculative to say that any episode happened during such-and-such time. — Morder (talk) 20:57, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

In this case it is reasonable speculation, based on a date given in a previous episode that takes place before it. --Nero210 21:18, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Actually no speculation is reasonable as we have a policy against it. The problem with "previous episode" or "next episode" is that you don't know (unless specifically stated) how much time has passed between two episodes. Granted if such and such episode takes place in, specifically, May of 2370 and later down the line another episode states that the first episode mentioned takes places 6 months earlier you can assume the episodes between also take place during 2370, unless you don't have the month, in which case the episode may have taken place in July of 2370 and 6 months later you'd be in 2371 and all the episodes between could have taken place within a week - we just don't know. Unless there is hard evidence of a specific year it shouldn't be added. (Also, please keep your indents the same as your first message) — Morder (talk) 21:21, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

A date given in an episode that takes place shortly before the current one isn't hard evidence? --Nero210 21:27, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Ah but how much time has passed between those two episodes? Unless it's a two-parter you just don't know. (Unless stated in the second episode) For all you know the second episode could take place in January of the next year. I'm not necessarily complaining about your changes so please don't take it that way. It's just that someone has already done reasonable assumptions to come to the dates that were posted and now you've come and done your own reasonable assumptions and changed a lot. As a result we have two different speculations as to when certain events in star trek took place. That is precisely why don't allow speculation - it just leads to problems. For instance, I could make a fair assumption and say that TOS takes place in the 27th century, which would make TNG, DS9, and VOY take place in the 28th and I would be right because of a statement made by Kirk in "The Squire of Gothos". Yes, I know it was an error but that's not the point. There are lots of errors in Star Trek and years/stardates are just one of many. — Morder (talk) 21:36, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way at all, just enjoying a lil debate :). I don't mean any offense towards you either. I do see your point, however I stand by my changes manly because to me they kind of cross into common sense (to capitalize on a previous statement here, an episode that states it takes place in year X doesn't mean that the next episode which gives a conflicting stardate is year X-1, because we don't know how the stardates REALLY work in the fiction), which I believe there is there is a fine line here that allows for it (as evidenced by a few articles on the site). --Nero210 21:49, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except someone else's common sense already placed the dates at a completely different year. That's why I don't really subscribe to any speculation about years. :) I still say only episodes stated to be within a specific year should be noted. I really hate how they even added years. The whole point of stardates was to remove any date specific statements within star trek. — Morder (talk) 21:59, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with Morder here on why stardates were invented, too many other pages at this point require a year. While I really don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, besides my rambling, it would be nice if some date was agreed upon; and I doubt the writers really want to answer some fan-email on when such-and-such episode from years ago was suppose to take place. Of course, someone could just corner them at a con. :) - Archduk3talk 02:00, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Since the timeline changes appear to be accepted, I suggest moving any further stardate debates to the stardate talk page, to make sure that this page stays on topic. --Nero210 07:59, October 20, 2009 (UTC)