Kling Edit

The planet of Kling?Edit

If Kling was on the star chart doesn't this at least suggest it was a planet? --TOSrules 02:51, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I suggest placing Kling in the Regions category instead of the Cities category in much the same way as Tomed. It seems pretty obvious to me that Kling would be somewhere higher than the level of a planet if we go by the star chart (the Encyclopedia is the only hint that it might be a city).--Tim Thomason 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The city of Kling?Edit

This comes from an earlier version of the article:

The city of Kling, later to be known as the First City, was established as the seat of power. Thus the word TlhIngan (meaning 'those of Kling') came to be the name for the race - Klingon.

This strikes me as sheer speculation based around the reference in TNG: "Heart of Glory" to "the traitors of Kling". However, without any definitive proof, the origin of the name "Klingon" is pure speculation.

Note: notwithstanding the meaning given to the word "Klingon" in the new language of the same name, the inspiration for the word might have a less obscure source: Esperanto. It is known that the creator of the Klingon language knew about Esperanto. The word "klingo" means "edge" like that of a knife, and when used in a sentence it can take the -n at the end, like in the following example: "I am contemplating the edge and its beauty", in Esperanto is "Mi kontemplas la klingon kaj gxian belecon". Given the relationship between cutting weapons and the Klingon culture, it is not surprising that the creator of the language would choose a word that (in Esperanto) means "edge" to be the name of the race and the language.

Interesting, but I think it merely a coincidence. Marc Okrand (if that is who is meant in the above) did not invent the word "Klingon". That was done in 1966; Okrand came on the scene in the early 1980s for the production of STIII. Aholland 15:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we're meant to be drawing from the ST Encyclopaedia here, but it does directly answer the question of Kling. Risking a flame or two: the Encyclopaedia article says that it's a district or city on Qo'noS, that the name was originally intended to be the name of the planet, but that "it was realized that the name sounded pretty silly" - which of course it does - so the planet was just called 'the Homeworld' until they named it Qo'noS for ST:VI. - 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Explantation for Changes Edit

I identify Kling as an astronomical object. What is an astronomical object? Wikipedia describes an astronomical object as a, Astronomical objects or celestial objects are naturally occurring physical entities, associations or structures that current science has demonstrated to exist in the observable universe.[2] The term astronomical object is sometimes used interchangeably with astronomical body. Typically, an astronomical (celestial) body refers to a single, cohesive structure that is bound together by gravity (and sometimes by electromagnetism). Examples include the asteroids, moons, planets and the stars. Astronomical objects are gravitationally bound structures that are associated with a position in space, but may consist of multiple independent astronomical bodies or objects. These objects range from single planets to star clusters, nebulae or entire galaxies. A comet may be described as a body, in reference to the frozen nucleus of ice and dust, or as an object, when describing the nucleus with its diffuse coma and tail. [1] I place Kling in locations as this category can be used for any place that can be identified as a location, yet the available information on that place is scarce and the editor is unable to identify it as a settlement, a planet, or a star.Throwback (talk) 13:46, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Merge, left cmt. Edit

With the latest information coming in from DIS: "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad", demonstrating that Kling is connected to the star system Qo'noS system, I believe the time has come to merge this page with the most appropriate page - Qo'noS (the star), Qo'noS system, or Qo'noS (the planet).--Memphis77 (talk) 15:01, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

Distance of Qo'nosEdit

This article says Qo'noS is 4 days from Sol at warp 5. This is based on Archer stating exactly that in ENT. But that makes Qo'noS like 2 light-years away. That's completely inconsistent. There aren't even any other stars that close to Sol.

This is based on an off the cuff comment made byh Archer to Hoshi, and it has no direct implications on the max spead of the ship. Useing 30 million km a second as a refrence to warp 4, close to the ships standard cruseing speed, you can assume that they use the TNG scale, and that the distence is double. This also makes Archers "To neptune and back in 6 minutes" make more sence, since with the tng scale, it takes 3 minutes to cross the solar system once. Ill Make these comments again in the nx01's page.--Sdamon 07:47, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
And why, pray tell, can we assume they use the TNG scale? --OuroborosCobra talk 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone wrote that at warp 4.5 for 4 days you could get as far as 400 light years. That's just wrong, someone did some bad math. If warp 4.5 is 91c (TOS warp factor), Enterprise could go about 1 light year in 4 days. So Kronos must be only 1 light year from Earth - that's closer than the nearest star!
And even with the TNG-Scale, Warp 4,5 means, it's 2,1 lightyears. That's the Oorths clouds distance, that is the ridge of our solar system, there can no other star exist, especially no one with M planets, we would see him. Perhaps the distance of Qo'noS should be deleted from the Alpha, mentioned, that there is no logical positioning of it in Star Trek...

Beta Quadrant?Edit

In which episode of which series or which movie is mentioned that the Klingon homeworld is located in the beta quadrant? -- TheQz 23:44, 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)

  • thank you, i didnt know even though i mustve seen that movie a million times..! -- TheQz 15:40, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Spelling Edit

Qo'nos/Kronos? Edit

Where did the Klingons go after Qo'nos became unihabitable?

Perhaps Kronos became uninhabitable, and they went to Qo'noS... Or they found a way together with the Federation to restore their atmosphere or something. Ottens 10:29, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
References please. -- Redge 11:53, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
No, that's just a guess. ;) Ottens 12:46, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
No, I meant in the article. -- Redge 14:37, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Thanks. I just didn't understand this.

In Star Trek VI spells it Kronos (Caption), and TNG calls it Qo'noS wouldn't the different spelling suggest that they are different planets? BTW, how is it spelt in Enterprise? --TOSrules 02:59, Nov 16, 2004 (CET)

"Kronos" is an Anglicization of the more accurately spelled "Qo'noS". You see a lot with Klingon-- "p'tahk" vs. the more accurate "petaQ". Heck, "Klingon" itself is more accuaretly rended "tlhIngan". It's basically a "Peking" vs. "Beijing" situation. --Steve 03:59, 16 Nov 2004 (CET)

Spelling revisited Edit

Per discussion at Talk:Kronos One#Name/Spelling, I found myself wondering whether the spelling "Qo'noS" ever appeared in canon. It certainly doesn't seem to show up in any of the TV scripts archived at; a Google search of that site for "Qo'noS" yields no results, while a similar search for "Kronos" shows the spelling "Kronos" in scripts for DS9 and ENT. Similarly, the script for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country uses "Kronos". I know that Marc Okrand came up with the spelling "Qo'noS" to fit his previously developed rules for Klingon orthography, but strictly speaking that's not canonical, is it? If "Qo'noS" was never used on screen, shouldn't the article be moved to "Kronos"? (We would, of course, leave a redirect at Qo'noS.) —Josiah Rowe 04:25, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

You're right; the writers consistently used "Kronos" in the scripts. The spread of "Qo'noS" probably comes from the Star Trek Encyclopedia, which uses the Okrand spelling.
Having said that, I would not be surprised if "Qo'noS" was used on some Okudagram somewhere, making it canon. Anyone know?– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:59, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
The spelling "Qo'noS" is, at least, by authority of Marc Okrand, who, as the creator of the Klingon language, definitely gets to decide. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
While important, that's not the sole criterion here. 31dot (talk) 02:20, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
In fact, since the spelling "Kronos" is clearly used on-screen in Star Trek Into Darkness, I recommend this page be moved there.--Defiant (talk) 09:56, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but believe we should wait until our american friends have had a chance to see the movie. Defiant, perhaps you could bring this up again after May 15? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:08, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't really see the point in waiting to start determining whether there's a community consensus on this, as we've chosen to ignore the US release date for other aspects of MA. In the grand scheme of things, a spelling being established is probably not as "spoiler"-heavy as plot points, which have already been addressed on this site. Without understanding your motives for suggesting a waiting period, I nonetheless obviously respect the suggestion, as always. :) --Defiant (talk) 10:19, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
The thing is that people stay the hell away from what they think might be a spoiler, so they won't even be seeing this discussion unless you manage to convince them that this discussion is "spoiler-free". ;) Between that and the fact that moving a page with several hundred incoming links definitely warrants a prior discussion, I just believe that it is easier to simply wait for a week than try to get enough people active now. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:28, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
Alright. I get where you're coming from. :) --Defiant (talk) 11:13, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
As an American who probably won't see the film right away, I don't object to a move to Kronos(if it appeared in the film), but are we sure that Qo'noS didn't appear on screen as well? 31dot (talk) 11:20, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
Upon watching Star Trek at the BFI IMAX, I noticed that the spelling Qo'noS seems to be used on the Enterprise viewscreen. --Defiant (talk) 12:48, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case, the page shouldn't be moved to Kronos. What counts is what the characters in the film see and the spelling they use. The text visible when the planet is shown is just for us viewers who are too stupid to pronounce Qo'noS. The same is true for subtitles and scripts. --Jörg (talk) 07:26, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
I would support a move to Kronos, since based on the new film that appears to be the primary spelling the producers prefer the viewer identifies with the planet. Based on that, and also the fact that this wiki is in English and not in Klingonese, I think it would be more proper to begin the page "Kronos (spelled Qo'noS in Klingonese)" instead of "Qo'noS (transliterated as Kronos in English)". --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:37, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm actually opposed to a move for a similar reason Pseudohuman is for one, mainly that the spelling "Kronos" is for the audience. STID is a film made for general audiences, not Trek fans, so the spelling used for the audience is the one that is readable to someone who knows nothing about Star Trek and the Klingon language. If you aren't fimilar with how "Qo'noS" is suppose to be pronounced, you might not make the connection between the spoken word and the written one (because Hollywood film makers think you're an idiot, like Holloywood producers). Making the assumption that Defiant meant film 12 in his last post instead of 11, it seems pretty clear the spelling in universe is "Qo'noS", and the captions are for mainly the audience's benifit (which of course, is what captions are for). The resource policy says we can use both spellings, I just think it should be the one intended to be in universe, since both are pronounced the same way, and the redirect covers the spelling issue well enough. - Archduk3 00:56, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Question about Kronos/Qo'nos Edit


Enterprise season 4 screen grab showing the name Kronos not Qo'noS

It looks like the Name Kronos was used for the Klingon Homeworld for Star Trek: Undiscovered Country, Enterprise (in the Closed Captions) and Into Darkness (on the upper left of the screen when 1st seen)

Then it looks like Qo'nos was used for TNG, DS9, VOY for the Klingon Homeworld (at least in the Closed Captions)

Since the plot line of Star Trek 6 was the relocation of the Klingon Homeworld within 50 earth years and the fact that the planet in Enterprise looks nothing like the planet in TNG what is the issue of saying that Kronos was the old homeworld and was evacuated around the 2340's and the Klingon's new homeworld was called Qo'nos in it's honor? the storyline of ST6 stated that the planet Kronos would be dead within 50 years so it can not be the same planet since no other TV show or movie ever states that it was reversed, but all the evidence seems to point to it not being the same planet (the planets look different, the plot line of Star Trek 6 stating it will be dead, the whole reason the Klingon Empire asked for help) by saying that they are the same planet it removes the point of the 6th movie and the turning point in history with the Klingon Empire is lost. Chasemarc (talk) 03:47, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Klingons used the peace established in ST6 to free up resources to build air shelters for the population on Kronos. Had they not established peace, the population would have died because the economy would have gone to the war effort with the Federation. Some of that dialogue was cut short in editing but the idea was that they didn't evacuate the planet. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:31, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Why would the TV Show Enterprise call the Homeworld Kronos and not Qo'nos as it is called in TNG and all 24th century Star Trek Shows? (see the screen grab, used under fair use) Chasemarc (talk) 05:49, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I would submit that there's a difference between the official, in-universe spelling of a planet's name, and the English/phonetic spelling used in closed captioning. - Aatrek 08:06, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
I concur. (See my above statement) --Jörg (talk) 08:15, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Indeed- closed captioning should not be used as the basis for spellings or content in general; it is 1)often based on early scripts and 2) made by persons unrelated to the production. 31dot (talk) 09:05, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
It's worth noting in bg if and in what episodes the Qo'noS spelling has been used in closed captioning in TNG-VOY episodes in the official releases, since that is not the spelling that has been used in any of the scripts ever, even when the word Kronos is a part of klingonese dialog. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:12, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Per Memory Alpha rules we can only use what is on TV Shows and Movies right? So here is what I have from only seeing TV Shows and Movies.

Star Trek Enterprise spells it Kronos, it is 4 days from earth at warp 5, the Mat painting or CGI of the planet looks nothing like the planet in TNG/DS9. The pictures are on the main Qo'noS page looks nothing alike the 2367 picture has a greener color atmosphere to it than the 2151 planet, the capital city in 2151 has mountains in the background and a deep canyon with a bridge spanning it, the capital city in 2367 (in the info box area) has no mountains and no canyon at all (the mountain i can understand they torpedoed it of the face of the planet but the deep canyon?)

In ST6:TUC the planet is called Kronos as is the Chancellor’s ship being called Kronos one, the president states near the end of the movie, before almost being killed, the evacuation of Kronos can happen within the 50 earth year timeframe, Spock in that same movie not only states they will use up the ozone in 50 years but that they are dying, the CinC in that movie states the Klingon Empire has 50 years of life left to them .

In the Episode of TNG called Heart of Glory they called the Homeworld, Kling “the Traitors of Kling”

From that point on in all of the 24th Century shows it is called Qo’noS, it is not as close to the planet earth as Enterprise-D with better Warp engines takes longer to get to the planet then NX-01 did (sins of the father), the times we see the planet in TNG it looks nothing like the planet in Enterprise (and I should not have to point out the fact that for the fans Enterprise came long after TNG so the creators of Enterprise already had the planet Qo’noS painted/CGI rendered at that point so why did they make a new planet if it was the same one)

Martok stated that he grew up in the Agricultural region called Ketha Lowlands (DS9, year of his birth is unknown but he has a junior officer in 2345) yet In Star Trek Into Darkness (alternate universe 2259) Ketha Lowlands is an uninhabited area of the planet. Granted it is an Alternate Universe, but how would Nero’s time changing in Star Trek 2009 messed up the Klingon Homeworld causing an Agricultural area to become an uninhabited area in less than a year, one should also point out that the remains of the buildings in the new movie looks to be in a state of unused that would take longer than a year to look so the area was uninhabited before the change was made to the timeline.

To Pseudohuman and his claim about Klingons used the peace established in ST6 to free up resources to build air shelters for the population on Kronos. Had they not established peace, the population would have died because the economy would have gone to the war effort with the Federation. Some of that dialogue was cut short in editing but the idea was that they didn't evacuate the planet

Deleted and cut scenes are not canon; it goes under Apocrypha sections (See Star Trek Nemesis and the first officer deleted scene) as for, had they not established peace the population would have died, I will point you to the TNG episode YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE (the timeline changed in 2344 long after the events in ST6:TUC) the Klingons had the military might to not only fight the Federation but to be the victors within 20 years per Picard telling Garrett, again the war is an alternate universe but the military forces must have been there before the first battle took place.

So looking at the evidence from using only onscreen sources, it would look like that the producers of not one, but two Star Trek shows (Enterprise, TNG) and one movie (ST6) wanted to make Kronos and Qo’noS two planets not one planet, using only what is on screen it looks like the following took place.

2151 NX-01 under the command of Archer visits the Klingon Homeworld, Kronos for the first time (Broken Bow, called it Kronos)

2293 Kronos’ (the Klingon Homeworld) moon Praxis explodes causing Klingon Empire to ask for help from the Federation (Star Trek VI, called it Kronos)

2343 due to the Ozone layer being depleted by the Praxis explosion, Kronos becomes a dead planet, the Klingon Empire with Federation help settles on a new planet first called Kling (Hart of Glory, called it Kling)

2364-2366 the Klingon Homeworld Kling is renamed Qo’noS in honor of the first Homeworld Kronos lost to the Empire in 2343 (sins of the father, called it Qo'noS)

I am not saying to rewrite the article or split it up into Kronos and Qo’noS (the article is great as is) what I think should be done given the standards and rules set by this Wiki and given the fact that more on screen proof exists in favor of two planets Kronos and Qo’noS, Place a blurb near the Star Trek VI section of the write up, or even at the end of the article, that states something like this,

Although no hard evidence exists, ether way, to the relocation of the Klingon Homeworld after the events of Star Trek VI, it should be noted that the painting or CGI of the planet used in Enterprise (see picture) and the Next Generation (see picture) looks different and all 24th century based shows call the Homeworld Qo’noS whereas all Pre-24th century shows called the planet Kronos , and no episodes after the events of Star Trek VI showed the Klingon Empire De-militarizing to focus of the issues the Praxis explosion caused to the Homeworld.

Unless someone can find any ON SCREEN evidence that states Kronos and Qo'noS is the same planet, we should follow the rules set by this Wiki and add the above blurb or something close to it. and please if you know of any ON SCREEN evidence that disproves the evidence i have given above, please, please type the episodes or movies into this talk page and i will be more then happy to say i'm sorry for wasting peoples time with this Chasemarc (talk) 23:50, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. Your timeline above about Kronos being a dead planet is pure speculation. Capital cities can be moved(the capital of the US was Philadelphia for a little while) Common sense tells us that we are only dealing with one planet here. 31dot (talk) 00:09, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
I would be surprised if Kronos didn't look a bit different after ST6 since they must have done some pretty major terraforming to restore the planet. My simple question was, has there been any actual episode released by Paramount on bluray or dvd that uses the spelling Qo'noS in the closed captioning. --Pseudohuman (talk) 02:57, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

To 31DOT, no I’m not overthinking this at all, Everything I had listed above are stated in the broadcasted live action TV Shows, and Movies to prove a point.

A point I might add that is (to the people in-universe) the start of a major turning point in HISTORY, peace between the Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire. Per this Wiki’s rules: Nothing I have typed in the above, all-be-it long winded explanation is pure speculation on my part, it is based on the information from the sources I provided above (Enterprise, ST6, TNG)

As per the policy I am voicing my case with proof that supports it, proof that uses facts at hand from the TV Show and movies, that per this Wiki are valid sources to use.

In fact per the guidelines of this Wiki my statements above are less “pure speculation” then Pseudohuman statement “I would be surprised if Kronos didn't look a bit different after ST6 since they must have done some pretty major terraforming to restore the planet.” My statements are backed up by on screen proof, his statement about “major terraforming” is not backed up by anything but his guessing,

To Pseudohuman, not that I’m 100% disagreeing with what you said about why it looks different from 2151 & 2360’s, you might be right about it but if you are can you provide the episodes like I have to prove this?

Like I said I’m not asking for the article to be altered in any way-shape or form, all I’m asking for is for someone to look at the facts I got from the TV Shows and movies put it to a vote and if it goes in my favor add a little boxed in area to this article that states something like this

Although no hard evidence exists, either way, to the relocation of the Klingon Homeworld after the events of Star Trek VI, it should be noted that the CGI of the planet used in Enterprise (see picture) and the Next Generation (see picture) looks different, all 24th century based shows call the Homeworld Qo’noS whereas all Pre-24th century shows called the planet Kronos, and no episodes after the events of Star Trek VI showed the Klingon Empire De-militarizing to focus on the issues the Praxis explosion caused to the Homeworld.


from DS9 season 7 DVD set CC spelling of Qo'nos (or QO*?NOS?)

And to answer your question about Qo'noS in the closed captioning in DS9 What you Leave Behind it is called Qo’nos (with a hiccup in the CC between o and n) on the Closed Captioning on my Season 7 DVD set, That said on Netflix in the same episode it is spelled Kronos, my DVD set came out when Season 7 was first available on DVD, i have no clue when the Netflix video was uploaded Chasemarc (talk) 04:28, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this whole discussion moot if both spellings are used for the same planet in Star Trek Into Darkness as stated above? Kronos appears in the corner on screen when the planet is shown and Qo'noS is seen on the Enterprise viewscreen. --Jörg (talk) 06:42, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

really? it is? ok if that is true then Thank You, but i only noticed the big KRONOS in the "you are here" upper left corner of the screen, if anyone can find a screen shot of that i'll drop it Chasemarc (talk) 06:52, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

You are overthinking something when it takes thousands of characters of text to make your argument. It is indeed speculation to create your own reason for why the planet supposedly looks different on two separate occasions. We don't need to explain away minor production nuances(such as why Saavik looked different in ST II than she did in ST III) with our own theories, to try to justify the use of different spellings. Pseudohuman is not making a factual claim; he is making the point that there are many reasons the planets could look different with no more evidence for one or the other.
Again, closed captioning is a poor resource and should not be used as one.
There can be no screenshots of the film (legal ones, anyway) until it is released for home viewing. I have seen others say that both spellings appear in the film in reference to the same planet. 31dot (talk) 09:16, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
A quick query: if in future Vulcan and Romulus's non-Anglicized names were canonically stated to be respectively Ti-Valka'ain and ch'Rihan, would we move those pages to those names? --Alientraveller (talk) 17:44, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
We'll decide that once that happens. --Jörg (talk) 17:47, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

i would have to agree with the 1,000 characters of text on this one 00:15, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we have pages based off of a "time reset picture" as seen in Enterprise Episode Future Tense making claims not seen in any movie or episode like, Bush and Clinton being President of the United States when a MAJOR WAR with a death toll of 30 million people took place (EUGENICS WAR), for all we know in the Star Trek universe Hillary Clinton (also in that picture) became President an HER LEADERSHIP ended the Eugenic Wars, and for Bush maybe he was the US Ambassador to the UK?

My Overthinking of the events is a way to show all the evidence i have based on statements from the shows and movie, yes it is long winded should it be dismissed because of that? if so then change your rules and policy governing this WIKI. because in real life the more proof from confirmed sources, like i did above, is better then just one 10 second picture of an event like the ones from Future Tense.

Like i stated above i am not requesting a major change to this article, just a boxed in notice about THE MINOR PLOT POINT IN STAR TREK VI (the major one being the death of Gorkon and who did it) otherwise i suggest removing the statements under Bush and Clinton saying that they were Presidents of the US in the Star Trek universe because that is more of a speculation on the part of this Wiki then what i have done.

or lets do it this way have people read what i wrote above and VOTE on the issue.

31dot i'm guessing you are an admin of this wiki but being an admin should not make your voice greater then mine, not if i have proven my point using information from canon sources and all you came back with is a "You are overthinking something when it takes thousands of characters of text to make your argument." or "Again, closed captioning is a poor resource and should not be used as one." that is in no way proving the statements from Star Trek VI wrong or the look of the planet being changed that is your way of saying to me "Shut up and live with it."

You can go ahead and ban me from typing anything on this site for what i say or will say but then that would make you a dictator, and if your answer is NO because of "overthinking" back up your reason for saying NO using facts from other Star Trek shows and movies to refute the facts i got from watching Star Trek, otherwise sir you already are a dictator on this wiki. Chasemarc (talk) 00:17, May 23, 2013 (UTC) I don't recall where I said that I was even threatening to ban you, or prohibiting you from doing anything, since you haven't done anything to get yourself banned. If I did say that please point out which edit I said that on and I will apologize. Edit warring can get one banned........but you haven't done that to my knowledge, and if it was with me I would be unable to ban you due to a conflict of interest. So let's back off the "dictator" language here. I also have not told you to "shut up", I have simply pointed out my opinion (the former comment) and a fact (the latter); closed captioning is indeed a poor resource as 1) it is not part of the episode, 2) it is made by people not associated with the production and 3) it is often based on early scripts.
I'm still not completely sure what you are asking for since there is so much text to read. We have articles stating that Bush and Clinton were President during events seen in Star Trek because..... they were President during events seen in Star Trek. What you seem to be proposing is purely a hypothetical situation based on certain assumptions you have made. 31dot (talk) 00:45, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the anon just above there happens to match Chasemarc's IP info/etc. -- sulfur (talk) 01:22, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

the user above mine matches because he is a co-worker of mine, and i even asked him not to type anything until he got home because of the fact that the IP's that come out of the building we work (Government) and will look like the same person typing.

and to 31dot and i was not trying to claim that you did threaten to ban me i said you could ban me as an admin, but you are right that was wrong of me to say and for that i'm truly sorry about that. as to the following

We have articles stating that Bush and Clinton were President during events seen in Star Trek because..... they were President during events seen in Star Trek.

what episode did they ever state that they are also Presidents with-in the Star Trek Universe? they have the pictures up in the Enterprise Episode Future Tense, but no place else have i noticed them talking about Bush or Clinton being Presidents in universe.

What you seem to be proposing is purely a hypothetical situation based on certain assumptions you have made. - and again what assumptions have i made about this everything i pointed out came from star trek (mostly from ST:VI) from the spoken words on screen by the actors. it is not a hypothetical situation based on certain assumptions that i have made, no more then the assumptions made about Bush or Clinton being President within the universe of Trek,

But I'll drop it since it does not look like anyone else will just watch Star Trek VI: Undiscovered Country and near the point that the UFP President is about to get killed he states the fact that the plan is to evacuate the planet within the 50 year time. that statement by him on screen should hold as much weight as a picture of Clinton w/o any words and claiming he's the President in the Star Trek Universe. Chasemarc (talk) 03:29, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

He said that they planned to evacuate, it doesn't mean that they did or that it was a permanent evacuation- plans can change. As for Clinton, we take a picture of him at face value, unless we are told it is someone different or they had a different job. He was put in the episode by people who knew who he was and what he did- just like the audience. That's common sense. Your ideas to justify the use of different spellings are not based in common sense- they may or may not make sense, but they still require speculation and assumption. 31dot (talk) 09:12, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Qo'noS-ian Geography?Edit

I've temporarily removed this passage until the information in it can be verified:

--The surface of Qo'noS comprises a single supercontinent and a vast ocean. In addition, the planet has a severely tilted axis which causes wild seasonal changes, a turbulent atmosphere, and extremes of both warm and frigid weather.--

Where was this ever stated or shown? What is the source of this information? Was this written on some screen somewhere? We should remove it as Speculation or Non-Canon information if it hasn't.

The information comes from the script for TNG: "Sins of the Father". It includes at description of the planet. Since it wasn't stated in dialogue, I'll re-add the information as background. --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's in the script it does have some measure of credibility, I mean, we do have an Article for Picard's new 1st officer Martin Madden, and he's only in a deleted scene, by that rational, we must include Wesley Crusher on the Titan. It seems to be a gray area, which is sometimes good enough, I was concerned with the level of detail in the blurb and the lack of citation, which seemed to indicate it was either made-up by Random Joe or pulled from some RPG or something. In this case though, it seems good enough to be a regular part of the article, maybe under an apocrypha heading?--Foravalon 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article on Martin Madden and similar articles are those that will need to be discussed in the near future. The canon policy, as currently written, is pretty recent and we haven't gone through and sorted out those articles for deletion or what-not. By the current policy, articles can't contain information from deleted scenes or items from early draft script that were later removed. The exceptions to these are things which appeared on-screen (such as a planet, etc.) that weren't named in dialogue but did receive a name in the script or was given a name by production staff. In these instances, for article naming purposes, we can use that name (i.e. Neural, Livingston). But I digress... actually, worse than that, I've plum forgotten what I was talking about. Oh, well. Hope I answered your question, at least. Good night. :) --From Andoria with Love 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Qo'nos-ian Geography... Is in and of it'self a misuse of the word Geography. Geography can ONLY be used in reference to Earth. (Geo meaning earth) For instance Lunar Geography is not a thing. Its ether Lunar-Cartography or Lunagraphy. So it would actually be Qo'Nosgraphy. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Federation membershipEdit

This article says that the Klingons were members of the Federation, based on Wesley's line from Samaritan Snare. Given that every other reference to Federation-Klingon relations treats it as an alliance of partners, not the Klingons joining the Federation, and the fact that the feudal militaristic society of the Klingons would not want to join nor would the Federation let them join, isn't it more logical to assume the line was a misspeak and not a statement of fact?--Foofy Attorney 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we decided that the line was ambiguous, to say the least. I've changed the wording to state that the Klingons joined the Federation in some fashion, not necessarily (and not likely) membership. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The Samaritan Snare reference was obviously a blunder. The Kilingons are not and never were members of the Fed - it's blatantly obvious. If Jonathan Frakes misspoke a line one day and said "I was asheep" instead of "I was asleep", would we change the Riker article to say "at some point Commander Riker was transformed into a sheep, though he reverted to Human form afterwards." No, of course we wouldn't. Not an exact parallel of course, but quite similar. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Not similar at all, actually, but we get your point. For the record, the line was not a blunder at the time; when TNG first began, the producers really did intend for the Klingons to be members of the Federation! In fact, the three stars in the symbol for the United Federation of Planets (which was introduced on TNG) were meant to represent Earth, Vulcan, and Qo'noS. What happened here was that the writers/producers had an idea but back-tracked on it in later seasons. So it is not a blunder so much as a ret-con. --From Andoria with Love 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Providence Edit

Under Names it says "a major providence on the planet Qo'noS". What on Kronos does that mean? The possible meanings of "providence" are foresight, God, or the capital of Rhode Island. Is there a colony there named after Rhode Island? --Nike 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it was a minor spelling error, in that it was supposed to say 'province'. I have made the change. Thanks :) - Enzo Aquarius 23:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed info Edit

An anon recently changed some background info on this page to read:

Qo'noS was mentioned as being located four days from Earth at warp 4.5 in the Enterprise episode "Broken Bow". Warp 4.5 equates to appoximately 30,000,000 kilometers per second (100 times the speed of light), and Archer also mentions that the Enterprise is travelling at this speed. If the Enterprise sustained warp 4.5 for the duration of the four days, Qo'noS could be anything up to 400 light years from Earth.

Is this correct or is this speculation based on someone's understanding (or misunderstanding) of how warp drive works? Was the previous information even correct? --From Andoria with Love 09:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the information is correct, but it contains a mathematical error. If you're travelling at 100 times the speed of light (100c), it will take you one *year* to travel 100 light years. The above calculation seems to think it would take one day. 4 days is about 0.011 years, so at 100c you'd travel (I think) 1.1 light years in 4 days. - Gregg
Good enough for me. I'll revert the change, but we may also need to discuss the previous statement, as well. --From Andoria with Love 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Most people (including me) assume that the Warp Number (Example: Warp 1, Warp 2, Warp 2.5, ect.) is how many times fast than light a starship is travelling, so wouldn't Warp 4.5 be 4 and a half times the spead of light, not 100 times the spead of light? Or is this just a common misconception of how warp drive works, too? Because if a ship is travelling 4.5 times the spead of light for 4 days, wouldn't that mean that Qu'noS is 0.044 light years from the Sol System (using the preivious statment that 4 days is 0.011 of a year)? Not 400? But isn't that impossible, and far too close to the Sol System? ~Casey

Klingon CalendarEdit

An assumption is made that the Klingon calendar starts with Kahless's death. This may or may not be supported elsewhere, but it is also possible that the Klingon calendar follows the practice of the Common Era calendar on Earth, based on the apochryphal birth of Jesus. This would change the purported length of the Qo'nosian year, and should be included in the article.Tfleming 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, birth would be more plausible than death. Alternately, it could count from the time he united the Klingons, or began his campaign of conquest Nik 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would think that when Kahless became the first Emperor is the most likely date for the beginning of the Calender. —MJBurrage(TC) 16:24, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Klinzhai Edit

hey, in the german edition of The Worlds of the Federation the name of the homeworld of the klingons is mentioned as "Klinzhai", not as "Kling". its realaised in 1996, but the copyright notice stats 1989. is this an error of this article?--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Klinzhai predates both Kling and Qo'noS and was created by John M. Ford for his novel The Final Reflection. It was then used as the name for the Klingon homeworld by other authors and also appeared in many FASA RPG books. When Shane Johnson wrote "The Worlds of the Federation" Klinzhai was still in widespread use, because it had been propagated as the name of the Klingon homeworld in several novels after "The Final Reflection". It has never been mentioned in canon, however, so we only have Kling as the name of the homeworld (1988-1991) and then Qo'noS, of course. --Jörg 06:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing Praxis Edit

There is no evidence that Praxis was an actual moon of the Klingon homeworld, and in the film it is only stated that it is "a" Klingon moon in the same sector as the Klingon High Command. In each long view of the moon, both before and after the explosion, there are no proximate terrestrial planets within sight, implying a long orbit around a far more massive body than any terrestrial planet could support. Additionally and more importantly given the severity and magnitude of the shockwave that hits the Excelsior, which was on the opposite side of the Neutral Zone and presumably many light-years away, it is reasonable to assume that any damage the Qo'noSian Ozone received came in much the same way. It is not very likely that if a moon in actual orbit of the Klingon homeworld were to detonate with the force shown on screen, and causing the near-absolute destruction seen in it's aftermath, and with the accompanying sector-wide reaching shockwave which it produced, that the planet would walk away with only relatively minor damage to its upper atmosphere causing subsequent pollution and a potential slow depletion of oxygen over the course of the next half century. Also the only major factor even leading to that inevitability was the economic difficulty faced by the Empire stemming from it's overinflated military budget. If a major body in orbit of a Terrestrial planet were to explode with the release of gravitational and energetic forces which Praxis did anything less than swift and major cataclysmic damage on a planetary scale would be an unreasonable outcome, it would cause a little more than ozone pollution. There is no evidence in the film in support of Praxis being a satellite of Qo'noS and only evidence, like the far flung sector-wide destruction caused by the explosion, showing otherwise. Therefore I'm removing the unsupported assumption from the page. – Foravalon 06:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the shattered moon we see in STITD? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Removed Text Edit

I removed the following from the Astronomical data seems more history than astronom, and history would more properly go on the "race" page, wouldn't it?

In an early draft of "Rightful Heir", Data gives the exact date of Kahless's death as 1547 years ago (from 2369), or 822 AD. However, from DS9: "Soldiers of the Empire", we know that the Earth calendar year of 2373 coincides with the year of Kahless 999. Assuming that the Klingon calculation of time starts with Kahless's death, we may conclude that one Klingon year, thus one orbital period of Qo'noS, equals 1.552 Terran years.

Capt Christopher Donovan 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also from Astronomical data:
"Warp 4.5 equates to approximately 30,000,000 kilometers per second (100 times the speed of light), and Archer also mentions that the Enterprise is traveling at this speed. If the Enterprise sustained warp 4.5 for the duration of the four days, Qo'noS should only be about one light year from Earth"
This is indefensible, because MA holds that warp factors/speeds/distanced aren't consistently calculable because the canon around warp factors/speeds/distances is so incoherent. That note (I am guessing) has probably been in there since before we got more on top of both defining and enforcing the policies, "original research" being the relevant one, oh, and the one about not being citeable. --TribbleFurSuit 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Background Note Edit

  • The use of this name may be a reference by the writers to that act, since Klingon mythology holds that the first Klingons killed their gods after being created by them as noted in DS9: "You Are Cordially Invited".

Considering that the first reference to the planet is long before this episode it's stretching — Morder 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut Sections Edit

I have removed these paragraphs from the body of the text.

It was not clear if the Qo'noS seen in ENT: "Broken Bow" was the same planet as that seen in the TNG and DS9 episodes, since the evacuation and a possible relocation of the Klingon capital world had never been seen or mentioned on screen, but merely planned at the Khitomer Conference in 2293. Nevertheless, the two versions of the planet (ENT vs. TNG/DS9) appear quite different from each other. Some believe this was due to pollution in the planet's atmosphere. This possible relocation would also serve to explain the differences in distances between "Broken Bow" and episodes set at later dates. A simpler explanation may be that the Vulcan star charts were simply mistaken, and that the planet was not in fact the Klingon homeworld of Qo'nos seen in other series. The Klingons may have allowed this misconception to develop in order to protect the location of their actual homeworld. (Speculation)

"Kronos", or alternately Cronus, was the name of a mythical Titan who was imprisoned in a dark pit by his offspring, Zeus. (No connection between the mythical figure and the fictional world of Kronos.)

Throwback (talk) 16:38, September 7, 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek into DarknessEdit

Qo'noS is set to appear in the upcoming film Star Trek into Darkness. Bad Robot Productions has confirmed this and it is seen in the teaser trailer very briefly. T-888 (talk) 08:00, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Answered you at Talk:Carol Marcus. 31dot (talk) 11:44, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
Saw the film tonight in IMAX 3D. Qo'noS is indeed featured. The dialog specifically states that the Ketha Province, and by extension the Ketha lowlands, are uninhabited. A moon that appears to be an already destroyed Praxis is seen in orbit, it is supposedly possible to beam directly to Ketha from San Francisco or London in a matter of seconds, and the Enterprise travels to Qo'noS in less than half a day. Also, Klingons are not affected by the Augment virus and their appearance has been retconned.
Seems to me that, given Klingon lifespans as demonstrated in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, either a childhood Martok or young adult Urthog would be living in Ketha around this time period. Did Red matter black holes cause the galaxy to shrink? How does Enterprise get within 240,000km of Earth after being at warp from the edge of Klingon space for less than a minute? — Khaaaaan! (talk) 04:24, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, the moon is not established as being Praxis, so a bg info reference has to be given for this connection; otherwise, it's just fanboy speculation. The beaming between San Francisco and Qo'noS is via transwarp beaming, established in the previous film. And what relevance does the previous post have to the work being done on this article?! --Defiant (talk) 10:44, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
"Transwarp beaming was a transwarp theory originally postulated by Starfleet officer Montgomery Scott, whereby it was possible to beam an object or person from one planet to an adjacent one".
Now, I've inferred from years of Star Trek episodes that Qo'noS is days travel from Federation territory. And I've inferred that even subspace communication at that distance would not be instantaneous. Show me on the wiki where I'm wrong. — Khaaaaan! (talk) 14:36, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

STID information about moon Edit

This was just added to the article:

In the alternate reality, environmental devastation caused by the destruction of one of Qo'noS's moons had already taken place by 2259, resulting in an uninhabited Ketha Province. (Star Trek Into Darkness)

Has any of this really been explicitly stated in the movie, or is it speculation based on the appearance of the moon? -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:10, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

I added that after listening to the Empire Spoiler Podcast with O/K. I think we were so caught up with whether that was Praxis or not that we couldn't see the woods for the trees, and that something that destroyed Kronos's moon and caused Ketha to become uninhabited. --Alientraveller (talk) 17:20, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

If this is something mentioned by the producers (but not mentioned in the movie itself), it definitely is a valid background info, but shouldn't be added to the article's main body as fact. (Also, do you have the timecode of that information for quick access?) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:37, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Well I recommend you listen to the whole thing, but it's 21:50 minutes in. Orci kinda dodges the question, simply comparing Ketha in the film to Chernobyl - you know, the inspiration for Praxis - so perhaps I was more than overeager to write that, but are we to assume Kronos's moon always looked like the Hulk smashed it? --Alientraveller (talk) 17:57, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I didn't see that moon (stupid 3D gives me headaches, so I had to take off the glasses at exactly that moment), but I saw its artistic depiction during the end credits. While that one did look similar to Praxis, we still have some wiggle room because we never saw Praxis before its destruction. Perhaps overmined Klingon moons regularly look like that, and what happened to Praxis just added to that. (As an aside, it's unrealistic anyway, I believe gravity would cause an object like that to melt/tear apart and form a more spherical object relatively quickly.) In any case, I think we shouldn't assume that one definitely did cause the other, although "Praxis-like event" and the comparison of Ketha to Chernobyl (Pripyat might have been even better ;)) are definitely worth a background info. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 22:10, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

I parsed the novel for this film. According to the novel (pg. 86), the Ketha Province was devastated by a plague, and the Klingons destroyed the province to prevent the plague from spreading.Throwback (talk) 07:16, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Klingon Empire in the Alpha Quadrant Edit

From User talk:Pseudohuman.

I am heading you off at the pass. I don't want to get into an editing war. According to a graphic seen in Star Trek Into Darkness, the Klingon Empire was located in the Alpha Quadrant. See here: (talk) 06:59, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Parts of the empire yes. But Qo'noS and the system was located in the Beta Quadrant. See information table from video: [2] --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:04, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

"NASA, we got a problem." In the video, there is a clear contradiction. There is the planetary data that places Sector 70 (Qo'noS sector) in the Beta Quadrant. That is one data set. Then there is the map of the Alpha Quadrant which states, "Neutral Zone Activity, Sectors 45-89." I read the "-" as "to", as in an Excel command. Which do we go with? Personally, I go with dialog which places the Klingon homeworld in the Alpha Quadrant.Throwback (talk) 07:34, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as a contradiction at all. The information table is clearly stating that Qo'noS the planet is in the Beta Quadrant. So that is as direct and clear as possible and there is no interpretation required when you see it. It is just there, it was in focus and legible on the big screen when ppl saw it in the theater. The star chart in turn was out of focus and had the label Alpha Quadrant in it but it doesn't clearly claim the whole chart is of the Alpha Quadrant, it says it is about activity from sectors 45-89, but there are sectors 31 and 34 on the chart. Sector 70 and Qo'noS aren't labeled anywhere on the chart, Sector 01 is also in the chart and it's above or below Klingon space on level 3-B. What ever that means. It is therefore clearly a map of more than sectors 45-89. and there are more possible interpretations than to conclude that the chart establishes that sector 70 is in the Alpha Quadrant. Maybe the quadrant line just isn't displayed in the chart, maybe the chart was zoomed in on sector 56 that is the only sector labeled that is actually inside the Neutral Zone. In any case it does not create a clear contradiction. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:41, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
Please move this discussion to Talk:Qo'noS later, so that we have it and its outcome where it belongs. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:44, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Who knows if Qo'nos is on that map? Just about everything is given a letter-number combination. There are a few exceptions. I didn't see Sector 56 on that chart. I will have to look at it again. To be honest, Pseudohuman, there are times when I don't understand your logic. I think it is because there was a difference in how we were educated. When I see a map that identifies a region, like the Alpha Quadrant, I have been educated to believe that I am looking at a map of the Alpha Quadrant. There is no uncertainity for me. However, I find these interfaces maddeningly confusing and unreadable. I doubt very many will have been able to read any of these interfaces in the movie theater. The text you mention, the one mentioning Qo'noS in the Beta Quadrant, is in a light color that, even when I see it on my computer, is difficult to read. It appeared on the viewscreen for a few seconds before it disappeared. Before I entered into this whole mess, I think I created a whole another mess. When I was looking at the Spacedock Manifest, I noticed what I think are three new ship designs. I now think I was mistaken. I think two of the ships, based on other interfaces, are actually Connies. Could you check that? If I made a mistake, could you please fix it? Thanks. I think the ships in question are the AF and VH-5. (Why couldn't they name these ships? Why give them these strange letter and number combinations?) As for Cid Highwind's suggestion, I don't intend to add further to this discussion. I feel I am drowning. Throwback (talk) 11:26, September 19, 2013 (UTC) Addedum: I checked the reference that you mentioned. It is labeled SCTR 56. At its most literal lever, this could mean anything. And why is Sector 001 in or near Klingon space? Shouldn't there be a separation of many light years between the two? The map is terribly confusing. Like I said above, the video you refer me to shows what the audience would have seen in the theater. For the person who doesn't hunt these things down, like you and I do, the text for Qo'noS is invisible. Anyhow, I am getting out of the water before I drown.Throwback (talk) 11:40, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Always when they use these 2D-maps of 3D-space we have no idea from what direction we are looking at things, and how things are orientated. A good example and precedent where this is apparent is how they depicted the cardassian border in these 2D-maps in DS9. sometimes cardassian space was above federation space, sometimes to the left of it, sometimes to the right of it, and so on. Another is the chart where we are looking at the sectors in the klingon-romulan border sideways as a plane and not as a border line. It all depends on how the map is rotated in any particular case and from what angle we are looking at the sectors. I think most people are a bit brainwashed by Mandels Star Trek Star Charts into thinking that all canon star charts also depict the sectors from the same side in the same orientation as all of his charts do, from above the galaxy and always orientated in the "earth - down, center of the galaxy - up" orientation. that just isn't the case when it comes to canon 2D-maps of 3D-space, all sectors are cubes you can observe from six different angles, and in four different orientations and in canon it can be any of them. also there is really no scale to this map, we have no idea how large of a portion of klingon space is in this map. this could be a really really tiny corner of the empire or a huge area depicting almost the whole empire. My point is just that there are so many unknowns at play, and the fact that Qo'noS is not labeled here, it all seems too vague to draw any definite conclusions from.
On the other hand "Qo'noS - information. Class: M, Type: Planet, ... Quadrant: Beta Quadrant" makes it a pretty open and shut case. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:42, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
Also, in response to
"When I see a map that identifies a region, [...] I have been educated to believe that I am looking at [that region]."
A map of Europe will nearly always also show a little part of Asia and/or Africa, a map of New York will most likely show some surrounding area that is not a part of the city itself, and so on. Just because a map is "about" something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it must not show anything else. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 14:49, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that there is a thick vertical separation line in the star chart that goes across the klingon empire that might be the quadrant line, with klingon star systems on both sides. Sector 70 might very well be on the other side of that line for example. I know it's all speculation at this point, but the point of all this was just to demonstrate that there is not a clear contradiction between the three graphics from the film. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:52, September 19, 2013 (UTC)


To recap this whole mess. There are three display graphics in the film related to the location of Qo'noS and the Klingon Empire:

  • 1. The clearly legible transwarp beaming device monitor that has among the coordinates for Qo'noS: "Sector 70"
  • 2. The targeted comm burst screen that has a Qo'noS information table that has the info on Qo'noS: "Sector: Qo'noS sector, Quadrant: Beta Quadrant"
  • 3. The Star Chart graphic of the Klingon Neutral Zone in 2259. While the original graphic is labeled to depict Neutral Zone activity on "sectors 45-89" and has an "Alpha Quadrant" label in the extreme lower left corner of it. When the star chart appeared on screen in the film, the star chart was out of focus and zoomed in, so that both the sector numbers 45-89 are not seen or the Alpha Quadrant label. Both are cropped out in the graphic seen on screen.

The question we were discussing above was: is there still a contradiction there? If Qo'noS is in the Beta Quadrant, in Qo'noS sector, that is Sector 70. Is sector 70, based on parts of the chart that were not seen on screen, somewhere on the star chart, that has the label Alpha Quadrant in the lower left corner. Does that mean the map is stating Sector 70 that isn't directly labeled on the map, is in fact in the Alpha Quadrant. Or was Alpha Quadrant just originally intended to be a portion of the star chart, and sector 70 is still in the Beta Quadrant as the information table together with the portable transwarp device are more precisely indicating.

My opinion: Qo'noS is in the Beta Quadrant. The star chart was cropped when it appeared on screen, it is clearly larger than depicted on screen over all and the Neutral Zone clearly continues on in two directions that are not seen because of the way it is cropped and how the news feeds are overlayed on top of the map, the quadrant separation line is not clearly labeled if it is even present on the map from the angle we are looking at it, sector 70 is not labeled, Qo'noS is not labeled on it, the map is actually depicting Neutral Zone activity on sectors 31 and 34, even sector 01 is on it, so there are clearly other sectors on the chart beyond 45-89. In my opinion, the map is just too messy and unclear for it to become a contradiction. --Pseudohuman (talk) 00:12, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Discovery and Kling Edit

DSC uses Starcharts as its base map for Lorca's Ready Room map, so 'Kronos' and 'Kling' are labelled next to 'Qo'noS' as alternate names for the System or Planet. Image --Tuskin38 (talk) 03:45, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

OK, if that's visible on screen I guess we now have to say "Kling" is another name for the planet (unless somebody else has another way to interpret that graphic). I'll revert myself, and then if you want to add a note about the Discovery map to the section on "The name of the homeworld", feel free. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:51, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

DSC Ep 14 Screen Caps Edit

I took some screencaps of the Map of Qo'noS that appears in that episode, might be helpful for anyone wanted to add any locations seen on it, most of them already appear to be in this article however, Imgur Album --Tuskin38 (talk) 11:47, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Intro Edit

Qo'noS, alternatively spelt Q'onoS, also known as Kling, and transliterated to Kronos in English, was

Since my attempts to fix this intro are simply being reverted again and again, without anyone trying to understand the problems and fix them, let me point out the issues step-by-step, in case my latest proposal is also reverted:

1) The second part of the sentence has absolutely no problem assuming that Kling is a canon name of the homeworld, even though it's never confirmed as such in canon dialogue, which needs to inform the canon section.

2) Nevertheless, the earlier part of the sentence chooses to forget behind-the-scenes and puts Q'onoS, an obvious misspelling from Okrand's POV, in the second place no less, even before Kronos. It should be removed entirely from a place as prominent as the start of the article; perhaps it's technically canon (just as it's canon that we don't actually know what Kling is), but there is no need to bring it up in a basic intro.

3) Kronos is not actually a transliteration (mapping letters of alphabets); that's Qo'noS. We could call it the anglicized version, but Qo'noS has the same status ever since official sources started going with Okrand's spelling in this case (but not with most other transliterations such as betleH). PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 13:30, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Let me refer you to this post: #Star Trek Discovery and Kling (or just read two posts up). --Alan (talk) 13:56, March 27, 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with them on point 3. Kronos does not fit the definition of a transliteration.--Tuskin38 (talk) 14:01, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Ok, while Kling may have been canonized as a name for the homeworld, it still has the prominence problem: that early stab at naming the planet just happened to show up because someone used Star Charts to create that map. It does not reflect the writers' long-standing intent, which is merely Qo'noS (Kronos) (the latter showing up in STID captions). There is no need to go into transliteration/anglicization because both spellings are valid for English, while Q'onoS being a production misspelling is totally inappropriate for a place as high-profile as the intro, even though we wouldn't be saying it's not canon, but merely not saying anything. Therefore, I'm back to my first proposal: Qo'noS (Kronos) was... -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 15:03, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

You are making a judgment call based on personal belief and not adhering to what is obviously now canon. You can't cherry pick facts. --Alan (talk) 15:10, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of objective, measurable frequency in the canon, not personal belief. Anyone can perform a script/subtitle search to confirm that Kling just isn't used anywhere near as frequently as Qo'noS (Kronos), or to confirm that Q'onoS is a clear misspelling, possibly even in-universe in Hoshi's file for all we know.

On that basis, the intro should give the simple, short answer to the question, while other sections can go into details. The problem here is that the intro is misleading to the reader who isn't familiar with the canon frequency of these options; it presents all of them as near-equals. I tried deleting the other options, I tried qualifying them with words such as "rarely"; what else can we do? -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 15:23, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is that you're assuming any of your criteria matter. They're all equal because they were all used, and you're the one trying to enforce your opinion in universe, instead of simply linking to the background section on the name. We do the same thing with ships with two registry numbers. - Archduk3 15:37, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of characters in-universe who refuse to use Kling but keep calling it "the Klingon homeworld" or "Kronos" (spelled in two frequent ways). In other words, don't ask me, ask Sisko, Martok, Burnham. The point of a canon section is to describe the canon accurately, and that must also take the frequency into account. That way, a canon section can serve as an accurate reference for future writers of canon, who would learn to prefer Qo'noS but perhaps choose Kronos as a more accessible option, and alternate either with "the Klingon homeworld", especially in less formal contexts. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 16:01, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Frequency is not relevant in this case. Whereas "Klingon homeworld" is a descriptive title, it was called Kling, as a name, not a descriptive title, we therefore acknowledge it as a valid name. We're not calling the article "Kling", leading the intro off with "Kling", we are simply listing it among the valid terms used in the primary section of the article. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you can't ignore it amend a footnote to the term, but as already stated, it is a valid term that is correctly placed in the article's intro. --Alan (talk) 16:09, March 27, 2018 (UTC)
Just bumping in to point out that Kling has been up for a merge for several months now, but no one has bothered to discuss it yet. Given that y'all are so passionate about the subject, maybe you could spare some time for that discussion also ;)
Also I think there's merrit to scrapping the word transliterated; that bit seems like a speculative interpretation. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:13, March 27, 2018 (UTC)
Again, let me refer to this post: #Star Trek Discovery and Kling (or just read two posts up). But since it keeps getting missed: the map reads "Qo'noS" "Kronos" "Kling". That transliteration is literally literal, and therefore supports the merge to this article. --Alan (talk) 17:26, March 27, 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Alan's comment that "frequency is not relevant in this case." If I were you, PreviouslyOn24, the most I'd argue for is possibly to incase the bits you don't agree with in brackets and/or adding a bginfo note to explain that the more-often-used references are more often used. Even that might prove a bit controversial, though, as the wording would need to be spot on. --Defiant (talk) 23:23, March 27, 2018 (UTC)
Silence is consensus, and we don't need to duplicate a discussion we're already had here, so Kling has been merged. - Archduk3 04:49, March 28, 2018 (UTC)