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.
|Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:|
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.
"we do not note the mere appearance or use of something in STO"
- Those instances are not just noting their use; the Tech manual note is explaining that they were different and were used by StarTrek.com as well as others. The novels explain the significant detail of converting from a Gregorian calendar and the "hyperdimensional distance averaging". The STO note was simply that stardates were continued from the TNG era- i.e. their mere use in STO- without providing some significant revelation about them. We use that requirement because virtually every page here could have "This appeared in STO" in it.
- The intricacies of how stardates in the game compare to real world time in STO are not germaine to this site, as we are not the STO wiki. 31dot (talk) 02:04, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I added that part about StarTrek.com at the same time I added the STO section. But I take from your statement that if I gave some significant revelation about them, such as how they actually differ from TNG (they were only "roughly" continuous) then it would be OK? --Nike (talk) 05:56, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
- I might suggest that it would be better to put your energies into improving Memory Beta's article on stardates(as they do better cover content from non-canon works like games) but if there is some major, significant difference about them that doesn't just have to do with their continuance from the TNG era (such as noting when a particular stardate is reached) and isn't just noting how the game itself works(which, again, is outside of our mission) it might be OK. 31dot (talk) 09:39, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
FASA and GoogleEdit
I thought I'd get feedback ahead of time before editing the article. FASA used "reference stardates" like Franz Joseph and StarTrek.com. However, they prefixed a digit and a slash to represent the century, starting with the year 2000, so January 1, 2000, was 0/0001.01 and the Organian Peace Treaty was signed on 2/0801.24, or January 24, 2208. (This system was introduced around the release of TMP, before the current chronology was established.) Preceding centuries are negative, so "Where No Man Has Gone Before" aired -1/6608.22 (The day my sister was born) and the Declaration of Independence was -3/7607.04. I know that this was a licensed work, but so was Joseph's book.
Google Calendar uses stardates based upon the ideas of Andrew Main. Each day covers 5.00 stardates, 10000 stardates (2000 days) make up an "issue". Issue numbers are prefixed in brackets. TOS was issue , 0000 was January 4, 2162, (when he speculated the Federation was founded) and today started at [-28]7155.00. --Nike (talk) 01:39, August 10, 2012 (UTC) SD 0/1208.09, [-28]7160.33
- The Google thing should not be on this page; it could be mentioned on Star Trek parodies and pop culture references. The FASA reference could go under Apocrypha, as it is a licensed work. 31dot (talk) 08:41, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
Out of order StardatesEdit
The article mentions several inconsistencies concerning stardates however it fails or neglects to address a most obvious one, namely that Stardates sometimes appear to go backwards. This is especially noticeable in TNG season 1. If someone watches the episodes in stardate order, Wesley Crusher is on the bridge before Picard makes him an acting ensign, while Yar returns from the dead in 2 or 3 episodes. I think this phenomenon would deserve at least a mention, and I am really curious whether any licensed source addressed it eg. that stardates are non-linear or sometimes are reverted. Does anyone else share this opinion? MoffRebusMy Talk 18:52, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
- If nobody objects I am adding a reference. MoffRebusMy Talk 09:13, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
Stardates in Star Trek (alternate reality)Edit
2233 0 4 = 2233.04 = .04*365 days after January 1, 2233. That would be January 15, 2258. If the digits after the decial place were going to be days in the year, the stardate would have appeared as 2233.004 for January 4, 2233.
2259.55 would be July 20, 2259.
- All we know is that Orci has said the additional 0 "could have been an error" and that the intention was that days are from .1 to .365. So that is what we go with. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:49, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
Leap Years. Edit
- I think so, though leap years have not been mentioned in reference to Stardates, I think. 31dot (talk) 08:05, September 13, 2013 (UTC)
alternate reality comics dates Edit
Seems to me that the alternate reality comics date database is sort of unnecessary and a bit excessive to this page in the bgsection, and should probably be somewhere else in MA, like a section here: Star Trek: Ongoing for example. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:30, February 28, 2014 (UTC)
- If it can be made into a separate page, say A list of alternate reality stardates (analogous to the lists of starship decks or dedication plaques), as the creator of this list I'd be OK with that. The point is to present all the facts about their usage in one place, so that the reader can immediately make a number of observations:
- The .0x stardates are outliers; they probably won't be used in the future
- No stardate fraction has more than three digits, consistent with Orci's rule
- No triple-digit fraction is greater than .366, consistent with Orci's rule
- At least one official publication (the IDW timeline) confirms the day-of-the-year interpretation, while others are consistent with it
- Also, if the readers are writers of licensed works, they can use a detailed list to choose appropriate stardate ranges for their publications, without risking overlapping or otherwise inconsistent numbers. --126.96.36.199 19:39, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Apocryphal isn't the word I'd use, since Orci is directly involved in those comics; there is no reason to believe he'd choose to revise but a fraction of the tangential events explored by Johnson. I also made sure they are in the background section, not in the canon section, which purposefully doesn't mention examples from the comics. If the table is split up in any manner, it would defeat its purpose, and we'd risk unnecessary inconsistencies in licensed works. --188.8.131.52 22:05, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
- You can't lump this together with the hundreds of novels produced with no input from the past producers. This is clearly a much higher level of approval and must be taken into account. And anyway, since there are only four "pure-canon" stardates, it wouldn't shorten the table by much. You'll only have inconvenienced the readers, who can see the sources for themselves and decide for themselves how much to trust them. Consider it background information, based on the background information that Orci is discussing these books with Johnson and that Orci gave us the three stardate quotes at the beginning.
- (Anyway, I'm in no mood for further discussion. If the table isn't preserved intact on this or another page, without an arbitrary split based on MA's perception of canon, I'll just stop contributing and let this section go out of date; an equivalent list will then be available elsewhere.) --184.108.40.206 05:56, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion since we have real world pov articles for all these apocryphal works about the alt reality, this would in my opinion still be okay as a "supplemental timeline" for all of them, when you want to look up in what order do the comics, novels, videogames and canon-films fit together for example. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:11, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
Star Trek II,III,IV Star Dates Edit
Star Trek II, III, IV & V
I was thinking about something: Star Trek II, III, and IV were effectively part of a trilogy. Star Trek V happened to occur shortly after Star Trek IV. Considering each whole number is effectively a day, and a decimal is a fraction of a day this would mean that
Star Trek II would end approximately 11.3 days after the start of the movie (8130.3 to 8141.6)
Star Trek III would begin approximately 80 days after ST II began
Star Trek IV would begin approximately 179.7 days after Star Trek III began and 259.7 days since Star Trek II began.
Star Trek V would begin approximately 64.1 days after Star Trek IV, and 323.8 days after Star Trek II began
William Shatner's birthday is March 22, and so is James T. Kirk: With that said...
Star Trek II starts on March 22 at 07:12 hrs
Star Trek III starts on June 10 at 07:12 hrs
Star Trek IV starts on December 07 at 24:00/00:00 hrs
Star Trek V starts on February 8 at 19:12 hrs 220.127.116.11 02:50, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like fan-based speculation and original research to me. I'll revert the edits to the articles, until this is discussed here. TOS and film-era stardates are used highly inconsistently. This level of speculation and rationalization should not be used in Memory Alpha. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:39, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I added a "dating" section to each film from 2-6, to establish the possible years when each film could have taken place and the reasons why we accept the specific year. The rest of the films are more obvious and don't need such a section. Some datings are a bit uncertain, but I think that when several official bg sources suggest a year that fits within the possible years where the film could have taken place, we can go with it. producer's (retroactive) intent and all that... --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:43, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
Motion Picture dates Edit
I think there is a mistake on this page and other pages, related to Motion Picture.
The stardate timetable says that TAS ended and Enterprise returned to Earth in 2270, and Motion Picture occured in mid-2270. It doesn't seem right, cause in Motion Picture it's directly said that repair of Enterprise took 18 months, and Kirk was on Earth even more - two and a half years.
Stardate 48702 from "Non Sequitur"Edit
- Traditionally the 48XXX stardates are assumed to relate to the year 2371. Kennelly (talk) 18:21, February 11, 2016 (UTC)