A Meta Timeline?Edit

In the various year and decades sections of the timeline, should we begin to make note of "real-life" happenings of the Star Trek productions in a separate lower section. People go through and link every year-date they see in entries, but some of the years are referring to 'meta' events such as TOS being cancelled in 1969 or TNG beginning in 1987. Should the articles of 1969 or 1987 include this data, or is there going to be a separate solution (i.e. the birthdays section)? --Captain Mike

The memory alpha timeline should only contain events which are according to the star trek universe. this might also include some decisive events from reallife (like Apollo 11, 2nd world war etc...) but there should be no onformation concerning the production of the star trek franchises. as already suggested, the best idea would be create a seperate timeline, similar to the birthdays-page. --BlueMars 00:17, May 31, 2004 (CEST)
Well, we keep non-Trek info in articles sometimes, in our background section. I would be OK with the 1969 article having its regular content about Trek universe's 1969, then a separate labeled non-canon section for Meta events relating to star trek, like series premieres and finales, unless we all think a separate timeline (or List of ~ events article) is an absolute necessity. --Captainmike 01:32, 31 May 2004 (CEST)

What doyou mean about Apollo 11? there was not inconstancy in the timeline with that? --TOSrules 03:29, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)


We always assume that each season of a show takes place in one calender year, but all the references to calender dates in the show contradict this. "11:59" takes place at the end of a season but it's calender date is given as April 22. "Homestead" takes place at almost the same spot in it's season and it's date is given as April 5. If you follow this to it's conclusion, the last 1/4th of a season's episodes should actually take place in the next calender year. The only other references to days I can find are "Data's Day" which takes place on the Hindu Festival of Lights (don't know when that would be) and I can remember one other TNG episode where they mentioned it was the anniversary of First Contact. What episode was that? Anyone else have anything to back this up or disagree with it?Ryan123450 02:50, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I just watched "Parallels" and it was stated to be on Worf's birthday. In another episode guide I read that his birthday was somewhen in the beginning of December, but the stardate of the episode was 47391.2 indicating a date in May... of course Worf could decide to celebrate his birthday following the klingon calendar... -- Kobi 11:09, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I don't think their is a real method to caculating stardates.
I realize there is no way to consistantly calculate stardates, but I just meant to determine if each season took place in one calender year. They obviously don't start on Jan 1 of each year, but I was trying to find a way to determine if they actually would start at a specific time of year each season.
However, since looking into it further it's obviously there can't be only one year per season as there are around 7 years difference from the beginning of season 2 ("The 37's" 2371) and the end of season 7 ("Homestead" 2378).Ryan123450 06:27, 4 Sep 2004 (CEST)

-- In the Voyager episode 11:59, they visit the town of Portage Creek on New Year's Eve 2000. ~~NotWillDecker

-- /Trekguide has some good info. Lenonn 06:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

According to "Whispers" , O'Brien's birthday takes place in September so it would be logical to assume that "The Assignment" takes place in September, which to my mind fits quite nicely with the Trekdate corresponding to airdate Igotbit 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the timeline pagesEdit

I recently went through 2151, 2152, 2153, and 2154 and added months for the episodes; these were based upon research at Psi Phi and my own observations. One thing that I don't like is the inclusion of the season headers on each page, which make it look clunky in my opinion.

Also: the ENT pages use format [[ENT]]: "[[Episode]]" whereas most pages just use [[Episode]] (i.e., 2269). Personally, I think the first is more desirable for reasons I shall shortly expound on.

Years where multiple series were running concurrently (i.e., 2371) simply have both series listed out separately, with movies at the bottom. Since this is a timeline, I would suggest that the two series be integrated, using airdate order as a guide. (On my comp I have the Pocket Books Timeline which already has this layed out.)

If the different series are going to be integrated, obviously the [[ENT]]: "[[Episode]]" is more desirable for episode titles. I would also suggest incorporating dates or stardates where known on the list. --Steve 21:37, 21 Nov 2004 (CET)

James Dixon's Timeline Edit

What do you think of James Dixon's massive timeline?


Warning: it takes several minutes to download. He provides comments and explanations at the end.

He says he doesn't want to include comics because then he'd have to include the Gold Key comics, which he says weren't any good.


Try the 18th edition. It will blow your mind.

A Timeline as A TableEdit

hi, please take a look on the german version of this article. wie made an timeline with a big verical table. its very incomplet but what do you think about the principle? on the talk page you can find other layouts --Shisma 13:17, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Chronology (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)Edit

No events years Edit

Hey, all! Should we delete all the years (such as 2045) that have no events listed to save some space? There are not going to be any pages linking to those if there are no events posted. If later Star Treks talk about those years, we could add them back. Just an idea. Any thoughts?  :) --Galaxy001 05:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a list of uneventful years on my userpage once, although it's "outdated" with a bunch of the dates having references now. We can delete them, but they are good for those wishing to go through the timeline (I've done that a couple times). I don't think they take up too much space, and there is probably a number of year articles that will be gaining content still (I just added a lot of dates based on Buck Bokai's playing card).--Tim Thomason 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If we delete them it makes it hard to navigate through the timeline pages. Jaz talk | novels 06:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Mabey so. It would make it a little confusing, so.... Sounds good.  :) --Galaxy001 17:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Apocrypha Edit

I'd like to hear some opinions on adding non-canon info on year pages, because some was recently removed but I can't see a problem with having it. If we have an apocrypha section on the year pages, just like we do everywhere else, it will give at least two benefits IMHO:

  1. We get to see some of the interesting events, character development, etc that happened in the better novels
  2. We will better appreciate the canon firewall when we read some of the more ridiculous ideas (like the Q Continuum being assimilated).

Figured I'd bring it up here in case anyone has something against this idea. And no, I don't want to go adding an Apocrypha section to every year page and add "No events yet" the way blank year pages have. This is just for future reference and so archivists know what's appropriate and what's not. So long as it's appropriately labeled apocrypha, it couldn't hurt, right? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 04:13, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

BOO!!! Get off the bloody stage!!!! Oh, sorry... :-P Seriously, though, I don't really have a problem with apocrypha sections on year pages, unless there's some policy against it that I haven't heard of yet. Support --From Andoria with Love 04:23, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Its completely against our policy and mandate. Many of us don't even read any non-canon material. I myself have never read a trek-book (and I'm a quite avid reader) or played any star trek video games. I suggest you try the non-canon star trek wiki...Jaz 04:36, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You just proved my point, so thanks. A lot of people, myself included, don't read the novels and therefore don't know what happens. That's why it would be helpful to include this information. What policy is it against? We have apocrypha on character, event, location, etc pages... I'm surprised you haven't lobbied to remove all the character info from the novel pages if you feel that strongly about it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:06, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I , too, think that this should be avoided. First, I don't know if the apocrypha sections are really "allowed" or if they are just "tolerated". Even then, we generally still make it a point to keep non-canon info only if there's a canon article to surround it (keep the info in one place). Second, I see the year pages not as standard articles, but rather some sort of extended navigation. We add short descriptions of events there that link to longer explanations on the article pages. In the case of information from novels etc., wouldn't it be better to have something like "The novel Title of novel takes place in this year.", or even a section listing all novels just like we have "Episodes" sections instead of describing events separately that could only link to the same source anyway? -- Cid Highwind 09:52, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what happened to spark the conversation; someone added on 2379 that the events of Borg Invasion 3D (Star Trek: The Experience) take place. Listing novels would work and make a lot of sense (perhaps a short sentence or two describing the book, but that's not necessary I guess). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 09:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at the relevant revision of that article. I think that, as long as we have an article about that non-canon resource (which means, it has to be an official product, not some fan fiction or film), we should link to that resource from the year page(s) in which the described/depicted events take place. It just should not be placed in the "events" list, but in another section, like the "episodes". Someone remind me, what exactly is the purpose of the "Notes" section again? Wouldn't these references fit there quite nicely? BTW, I also think that an "episode" listing should be below the events, not above it. -- Cid Highwind 11:26, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Agree about moving the canon "events" above the meta (outside POV) "episodes" list.
About apocrypha, its good to know that my work here is... tolerated :P thanks a lot for the gushing praise. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:59, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection against adding non-canon Apocrypha to pages that already, canonically exist. In my opinion, this only expands the article in a very helpful and informative matter. Support. Ottens 21:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


There is a problem with the organization of years : see for example 2349 and 2350. One time there are "Events" and "Notes" and sometimes just "Events". I know there are only few pages where "notes" is useful, but we should make them all similar. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First time seenEdit

Maybe, we should also add in "notes" the first time we see something happen when we don't know the official date of beginning (for example, the change in uniforms, technologies, starship classes... : "2278 was the first time we saw new uniforms and the Delta insign for all Starfleet personnel, they must have changed between 2272 and this year" ; "This is the first time we see the new XXX class of starship, but it could have been developped years before.") in order to enable people who read the whole chronology to understand better the chronology because there are many events that can't be referenced. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete year pagesEdit

If someone is motivated (I haven't got the time), I suggest to look up at "What links here" for each year because there are many events still missing. - Philoust123 21:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the "line" in the timeline? Edit

Typically, a timeline should include a visual image of events over time (either vertically or horizontally aligned). This allows the reader to get a sense of the relationships between and across events.

Instead, this article is primarily a listing of events (and each sub-article is a listing of events that take place during a particular period of time). This makes it almost impossible to understand if events in one decade connect to those in any other.

Obviously, it's better that MA has documented events, but it would be better still if someone could organize the data so that one doesn't have to wade through several pages to get a sense of the scale of history covered by the franchise and/or each captain and/or each series. 21:25, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

From Series Timeline Edit

DS9 end date Edit

Deep Space Nine ended in 2375, so that block or whatever needs to be filled as well. --From Andoria with Love 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Egad, those new colours at the top are awfully ugly. It was much better without them to my mind. With the new colours, the titles are nigh-unreadable. -- Sulfur 19:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No DS9 goes over one year; the color bar says it ends in 2376, when it in fact ended in 2375. --From Andoria with Love 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fans of the season 8 novels must have slipped that in... oh, those Niners! -- Captain M.K.B. 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarify? Edit

Hmm, does this timeline - as is - really clarify anything? Don't get me wrong, I think it might be useful to have a timeline for all the series, but I don't know if this one achieves what it is supposed to.

If I'm trying to have an impartial look at it, I'm confused. The abbreviations might not make sense to everyone, and having them at the top while related color-coded cells are two screens below doesn't make this table easier to read. Also, the "variable-length timejumps" make it hard, if not impossible, to really understand how any two of the entries in this table are related. For example, at a first glance ENT seems to be followed up by TOS directly, although they are more than a century apart.

I don't know how to fix all of this at the moment, although I've got some ideas that I will try out on the weekend, probably. Meanwhile, perhaps there are other suggestions on how to make this work? -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to have, but I have the same concerns. As far as the header line scrolling off the top, perhaps we could put the body of the table in a scroll box so that the header is always visible. Or, we could duplicate the header cells at the bottom of the table as well. The the abbreviations expand if you hover on them, so I don't think that's as big of a problem, and we could also add a key.
The time gaps are a bigger problem, and I don't have a good solution for that right now. -- Renegade54 13:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy request to help non-trekkis Edit

I am not familiar with all the abbreviations used in the article. Please use the complete name or just link the abbreviations to the corresponding Star Trek-projects. The later can be easily done without having to change any design of the table. -- 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I came here to get a vague idea of the timing, but other than the basic stuff (i.e. TOS), I find the abbreviations a little confusing. 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

TOS and TOS movies a century off Edit

I have no idea how to edit this page,so I am not going to try to fix this, but TOS is wrong. On this chart, it is from 2165-2168. That would put it ten years after Enterprise, and about a century too early. In fact, the same is true for the TOS movies, they are all in 21xx on the chart, but they all took place in 22xx, a century later. I'd fix it, but I am not touching this article, I don't understand the code well enough. --OuroborosCobra 20:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems the entire 23rd century is missing. Is this article really useful? I'm looking at it and I see more confusing than a 'helpful guide'... - AJ Halliwell 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I put it as the 22nd century on accident. Will fix that. Do you think it's better to list every single year? Metnever 19:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion Edit

(Moved from "Talk:Series timeline/temp")That seems pretty accurate to me.--Matthew 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I put up an alternative suggestion at "Series timeline/temp". Feel free to edit that, but at the moment please don't add any wikilinks, styles for background color etc. which would only complicate solving the remaining issues with this one. The main problem is that, while the boxes are "aligned" on years correctly, the box width is not proportional to the timespan each box represents. For example, in the "TNG" line, each movie box represents one year. Every space between these boxes also does, but is much smaller. The "TNG" box itself should be a little longer than the DS9 one and so on.
This could probably be solved by giving each box a fixed width proportional to the timespan, but in that case we should to the same with each "space", thus ending up with a very wide table. Is this necessary, or does this table do its job "well enough"? -- Cid Highwind 10:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The multiple line version is much easier to read, but could possibly do with some more vertical space between the separate segments. -- Sulfur 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
(Moved from "Talk:Series timeline/temp")Why not place the timeline from top to bottom instead of left to right ? I for one don't like to scroll left/right. Seems to me that a top/bottom scroll gives a more natural flow with MA. Just my E0.02 -- Q 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That is another option, basically the timeline we have now, with the series titles moved to the table itself. However, if I hear "timeline", I think "horizontal", not "vertical", so that suggestion may just be my personal preference. I don't think scrolling left/right isn't inherently bad, but the two existing designs could of course be merged somehow... -- Cid Highwind 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I like yours better Cid. Go ahead and overwrite mine. I like the one line timeline the most, but a top to bottom scrolling table would be better. Also, DS9 is off one year. According to the article it ended in 2375. Metnever 19:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cid, do you know if the EasyTimeline extension is active on MA? The Special:Version page says it is, but the wiki doesn't seem to recognize the <timeline> and </notimeline> tags. -- Renegade54 01:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It should work, although the closing tag is </timeline>, not notimeline... on what page did you try it? I have to say that I don't really like the resulting layout, though... -- Cid Highwind 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew it was </timeline>... brain fart, heh. I tried copying one of the example timelines from wikipedia, just copy and paste into a new page, and the end result was... absolutely nothing. Nothing between the tags showed, nor did the tags themselves. -- Renegade54 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Odd, timelines work pretty well on my Kzinti page -- Kobi 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could this entire page not be replaced by a diagram? There's a similar one on --Proudhug 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example I came up with. Click for a larger version. I'm sure someone can do something with this. --Proudhug 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is Star Trek: The Animated Series Edit

Okay so Star Trek: The Animated Series, or TAS, is not canon why!? Just because it is Animated does not mean it has to be Fanon/Non-Canon/Fan-Fiction (Whatever you would like to call it)! --Captain Zman 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The animated series is canon on Memory Alpha, it's just that people neglected to be include it here. --From Andoria with Love 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We should add TAS on the Timelime, Kirk's five year mission ended in 2270 not 2269 or it would be a four year mission and Star Trek: The Motion Picture took place in 2273 because Kirks "five" year mission was from 2265 to 2270 and in a Quote from the movie says:

"Well, two-and-half years as Chief of Starfleet Operations may have made me a bit stale, but I wouldn't exactly consider myself untried... They gave her back to me, Scotty."

  • 2270 plus two-and-half years is 2273!!! Please give me your thoughts on this. --Captain Zman 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, TAS should be included in the timeline. As for The Motion Picture, we tend to just refer to that as being set in the early 2270s, since we're not sure at what part of 2270 Kirk's five-year-mission ended. If it was early 2270, then there's a chance the film takes place in mid-to-late 2272. But, yeas, TAS should be added to the series timeline. --From Andoria with Love 03:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey people, I'm back! Well lets see, go to the Stardate Page on the Star Trek Expanded Universe Wiki and type in Stardate click on one of the stardate links at the end of the page and you'll see the whole Stardate=Today math problem on Kirk's last mission and we will see what year and month is was and then we will do the math and see what year ST: TMP took plaece. --Captain Zman 07:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, according the stardate calculator, TMP took place in 2268, three years into Kirk's five-year mission. Further proof why fan-created stardate calculators are bs. ;) --From Andoria with Love 13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • stardate calculator is way off! --Captain Zman 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's been stated many times that officially TAS is NOT canon, and therefore it should be removed. TAS is no more canon than random Trek books and comics. Yeah some people may like the show, but nothing that happened in the series is canon until it gets included in the live action shows and movies (for example, officially Kirk's middle name was not canon until it was mentioned in Star Trek VI). I know this site for some reason wrongly counts TAS, but the FACT is that the animated series is not canon in the Trek universe. TJ Spyke (talk) 05:23, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Season Converter Edit

Just a thought, but it would help if there was a general season-to-season comparison. That is to say if we could see that Season 1 of Voyager is more or less contemporary with with Season 3 of DS9.

Change to Spock's birthyear Edit

After watching the episode "Yesteryear", I have fixed numerous timeline errors, the most notable being Spock's birthyear. According to the original timeline, Spock is born in 2230.

Yet, when I ran through the episode, it is stated by Spock that he wishes to time travel via the Guardian of Forever to a Vulcan of 30 years ago. If the year of this episode is 2269 as stated on the episode page, then this means Spock traveled to the year 2239. Again, according to Spock, he is saved by his cousin 'Selek' when seven years of age. Thus, if the events depicted in "Yesteryear" occured in 2239, Spock had to have been born in 2232, not 2230. Ergo, I changed any references to these events to the correct year.

(I didn't want to explain over and over why I made the change. I thought a single location would be ideal.)--Airtram3 13:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's still a problem with that - not one you're responsible for, though. :) It's the huge assumption that this episode really took place in 2269. Can we be sure about that? -- Cid Highwind 13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the source for the original date of 2230 is the Star Trek Chronology where it is stated that according to a deleted scene from "Journey to Babel", Sarek and Amanda Grayson married 38 years prior to the episode (2267), meaning they were married in 2229 and then, another assumption, Spock was born about a year later, hence 2230. --Jörg 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cid -- the episode date is by no means "fixed in stone" -- while the birth year is at least derived from a deleted script scene. It might make more sense to change the date of "Yesteryear" than it would to change the more well-established birth date. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the date of this episode is based on the assumption that TAS Season 1 is year 4 of the five-year mission running from 2265-2270 (which are up to 6 years, btw, leaving some wiggle room in itself), right? The exact assignment of episodes to years here escapes me at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Cid, you realize of course that the dates for ALL TOS episodes are based on an assumption. When looking at the whole picture, this kind of ties to the discussion over at "Forum:Date of Voyager's Return," where we get one or two calendar date references made in a whole series, and they are responsible for dictating or resetting the rest of the otherwise (almost) established time-line. So, here are a few points that need to be consider for this scenario as a whole:
  • The calendar dates for TOS are based initially, and almost entirely, on the idea that the year that the episode aired in + 400 = 226x, as established by the Star Trek Chronology. This method completely disregarded the season that an episode aired, unlike the system that was later established in TNG (where 1 season = 1 year), and where TOS Season 1 might have been something like 1/1/2266 to 12/31/2266, rather than random date 2265 through random date 2267. In fact, the ST:Chronology seems to have "made up" most all of the dates in the Star Trek universe, especially for TOS. Meanwhile, this site, from day 1, has apparently recognized these dates, which are based on conjecture, yet ironically deems the source itself as non-canon, according to its own policies, meaning our entire time line is based on conjecture. The exceptions, of course, being ENT, where the year was explicitly given, and the 3 or so post-TOS series episodes that establish an actual calendar year: TNG: "The Neutral Zone", VOY: "Eye of the Needle", "The 37's"; with several establishing calendar days (but not actual years): TOS: "Charlie X", TNG: "Data's Day", VOY: "Non Sequitur", "Year of Hell", "11:59", and "Homestead"-- with the latter being the only episode to actually have the time-line adjusted according to compensate-- perhaps.
  • While none of that is truly applicable to TAS, establishing a time-line for the series does. So, to say the least, the date assumptions in TOS-- that we are partially responsible for and the ST:Chronology is responsible for-- only make the task of pegging the dates of TAS down that much more difficult to tackle. These difficulties begin at TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which apparently takes place almost a full year (2365) before the rest of the first-third of TOS Season 1. Why this is, escapes me. If the plot line goes: "These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission--," and the mission began in, say 2265, why does our time line drop off, then pick up again midway through the second year of the mission, 2266, with the season ending midway through the third year of the supposed "five-year mission"? If "Where No Man Has Gone Before" presumably picks up at the beginning of Kirk's "five-year mission," why can't the rest of TOS Season 1 follow, rather than arbitrarily skipping ahead a year to follow the "+400 formula" established by the ST: Chronology? The least we could do is explain why we did this on M/A, because if this is wrong, then this obviously trickles down, causing us to wonder if TOS: "Journey to Babel", another episode referenced here, really happened the year that we have it has cited as having happened.
  • In the entire TOS series, only "Charlie X" manages to establish a calendar date reference where, "On Earth today, it's Thanksgiving" -- allowing us to assume that at that point it was late November on the Enterprise, just because it was on Earth-- the same can almost be said about the "Homestead" reference too. But the question still remains: is it supposed to be Thanksgiving, 2265 or 2266? This, of course, all goes back to why "Where No Man Has Gone Before" mysteriously takes place a year before the rest of the episodes from that season.
  • So back to the topic at hand, and what this all essentially boils down to: why does the majority of TAS Season 1 episodes fall within the year 2269? The only, I daresay, plausible reference I can find that can place any TAS episode in the TOS time-line, was made in the very episode that started this discussion: TAS: "Yesteryear". It is here that it is established by McCOY that "He's been your first officer for five years", placing this episode within earshot of the final full year of Kirk's "five-year mission." But then again, this is where all my previous points become necessary to think about: What year it is, which then again depends on when exactly the mission began (2265 was never fully established, but then again, when in 2270 the mission ended (c.f. VOY: "Q2") wasn't either), and then of course, was this reference made to represent exactly 5-years (versus "almost", versus "the duration of this five-year mission, thus far").
So while Cid is right in as far as it being an assumption that "Yesteryear" really took place in 2269, it is really no more of an assumption than the rest of the TOS time-line. So in the end, this much is clear: "Yesteryear" wiggles in near the end of the "five year mission," which does seem to fit into the year 2269-- at least the latter half of it; if not the very beginning of 2270. But the real question is, when does TOS really take place? --Alan del Beccio 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, talk about opening a whole new can of worms. Okay, I'm gonna just type here and see if anything makes sense (I'm not holding my breath). Anyways, as stated above, we know that Kirk's five-year mission ended in 2270, courtesy of Icheb in VOY: "Q2". And since we have no reason to believe that the five-year mission was interrupted for some reason or another, I think we can safely assume that the mission began in 2265. (There's also a possibility that the mission actually began in '64 and ended in '69 and only returned to Earth in 2270, but that's just my own bit of speculation; without further proof, we should just assume it began in '65.) We also known that "The Trouble with Tribbles" took place at least sometime in the mid-to-late 2260s, based on the assumption (likelihood, actually) that "Trials and Tribble-ations" was set in the early-to-mid 2370s, 105 years later. As for TAS, that series was intended to be part of the mission depicted in TOS, right? Judging from D.C. Fontana's beliefs on the subject, I think it's safe to assume that it was the writers'/producers' intentions that TOS and TAS be part of the same five-year mission. So, TOS+TAS = one five year mission, taking place between 2265 and 2270.
Now, as Alan said, McCoy stated in "Yesteryear" that Spock had been serving as Kirk's first officer for five years. So, this means that the episode was set either at the beginning of the ship's final year (2269) or exactly five years after the ship set out (2270). Also, one must remember other facts revealed about Spock's career throughout the series. In "Where No Man", Dr. Dehner states that Spock and Gary Mitchell had been serving together "for years" at that time. In what capacity or on what post they were serving together can only be speculated, but one must also take into account that Spock had served Capt. Pike for 11 years, and that "The Menagerie" took place 13 years after "The Cage". This means that, at that time, Spock may have well been serving under Kirk for two years, placing "The Menagerie" at 2267 (which is where we currently have it). We also know that Spock entered Starfleet Academy 18 years prior to "Journey to Babel". So, with the knowledge that TOS takes place during the late 2260s, this places his entrance into the Academy in the late 2240s (we have it at 2249), his service aboard Enterprise beginning in the early 2250s (with "The Cage" taking place in 2254, as already listed), and his service under Kirk beginning in 2265. I'm sure I missed some variable in there which someone will point out to me, but that's the way I see things right now. "WNMHGB" may take place a few years after 2264/65, based on Dehner's comment; "The Menagerie" takes place in '67; and the entirety of TAS takes place in the fifth and final year of the mission, not in the fourth as Fontana would like. This means, however, that we're missing a year of the journey somewhere since we have three years of TOS and one year of TAS (albeit, in two seasons).
If I were to speculate, I would say that Spock began serving under Pike in '52, Kirk and crew assumed command of Enterprise in '63 (Enterprise-B was the first Enterprise in thirty years without Kirk in command) during which time Spock and Mitchell began working together (explaining Dehner's comment), and the mission itself began in '64 or '65 (again, we should just assume the latter).
Where am I going with all this? I have no frakin' clue. I thought maybe typing some facts would give me some ideas as to how to solve this puzzle, but I thought wrong. Maybe someone else can use the above info to figure things out... otherwise, just ignore this entirely. --From Andoria with Love 01:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple corrections, Shran, with the facts-- and I'm not even touching the wheelbarrow load of speculation:
  1. Icheb said "Finally, in the year 2270, Kirk completed his historic five year mission and one of the greatest chapters in Starfleet history came to a close." Killing the theory that it started in '64 or ended in '69.
  2. McCoy actually stated in "Yesteryear" that Thelin had been serving as Kirk's first officer for five years, not Spock. Seeing that Spock was the only element removed and replaced in that timeline, there is much less reason to think that that line wouldn't apply to him just as equally. That is, I cannot fathom any reason why the absence of Spock from the timeline would have any influence on the date that Kirk took command.
While the rest of your speculation is must keep in mind that a lot of the dates you are establishing are pretty conjectural. If, for example, Kirk's mission did indeed start in 2265, and you took Harriman's word literally, then perhaps Star Trek Generations really takes place in 2295. Otherwise, rounding 28 years to 30 isn't that big of a leap...--Alan del Beccio 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it possible that Spock/Thelin took over in 2264 while Kirk was in command, but before his historic five year mission? Like, during a refit, shakedown, or training cruise.--Tim Thomason 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There are so many issues with the Star Trek: Chronology, and which are duplicated here unfortunately.

a.) A look at the history for the original. Let's take the second pilot. We have two events set approximately two hundred years before the episode: the misson of the SS Valiant and the poem "Nightingale Women" is published. The year for the latter is given as 1996, which would place the episode in the mid-to-late 2190's. So, when the events were shifted to the mid-23rd century, why do we now have one event occuring two hundred years before (Valiant's mission), and the other occuring approximately two hundred seventy years before (Nightingale Women). Shouldn't they be in the same year? b.) There is somewhat clear canonical evidence in the original that between the second pilot and "Space Seed", the same year is considered. In the latter, Khan as having awakened two hundred years after his launch in 1996, thus placing this episode along with the second pilot in the mid-to-late 2190's (or, more accurately, 2196.) If we take the "Menagerie" into account, then we are at least two years into the mission. This is supported further by the episode "Day of the Dove" which mentions the Organian Treaty as occuring three years before. So, if we consider these events, we are seeing years two to five of the original mission. c.) Mr. Okuda ignored canonical evidence stated in the Next Generation which placed the events in "Data's Day" as occuring in a October of a year, on stardate 44390. If we followed canonical evidence, then a stardate year begins in the late summer of one year and ends in the early summer of the following year. In that line of thought, "Encounter at Farpoint" occured in the fall of 2363 and "The Neutral Zone" occured in the summer of 2364.--Airtram3 05:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Alan -- I knew I got something wrong in there. Actually, I'm surprised there isn't more. Thanks for the corrections, though. --From Andoria with Love 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Canonical years for TOS Edit

I was wondering if I could change some of the years for the original series. My understanding is that for the episodes, they were to occur some three hundred years after they aired. I note, however, that some of the episodes are placed at a date which doesn't match, and which presents new problems in the chronology.

According to this philosophy, one of the following episodes would have occured in 2266 (though they are listed in 2267):

  • The Menagerie, aired November 1966
  • Shore Leave, aired December 1966**

In the case of Shore Leave, we are given a firm date of 15 years before the episode that James Kirk was a plebe, was tormented by Finnegan, and had a relationship with Ruth. By moving this episode to 2266, Kirk would have entered the Academy in 2251 at age 17 (meeting the age requirement mentioned in (TNG: "Coming of Age") of age 16), spent four years at the Academy, and graduating in 2255, whereby he was promoted to lieutenant and assigned as navigator aboard the Farrugut (TOS: "The Corbomite Maneuver") However, by keeping the episode in 2267, which violates the priniciple referred earlier, Kirk would be a plebe in 2252 and graduated in 2256. May I make the change?--Airtram3 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What we really know about those dates is that what we saw were parts of a "Five-year mission" that ended in 2270. We don't know when exactly it ended in 2270, and whether it lasted exactly 5 years, was expanded for a year or whether the last three months were cut off. So, everything that matches the first two data points should be fair game. If we really don't know more than that, perhaps we shouldn't use any date - although that would lead to other problems as already discussed here: #Change to Spock's birthyear.
Additionally, if we could get a production note from the time of TOS production, stating that this "+300 years" rule-of-thumb really was used, this could help solve some problems. I doubt something like that exists, though, because we were fed information ranging from +200 to +700 years.
If there is episode-specific data that nails a date down to a specific date without speculation, go ahead and change it... -- Cid Highwind 09:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that making up the dates based on "airdate + 300y" doesn't make any sense, and should be avoided. It simply can't be proved to be what they intended from the start.
Also, dates of Academy entrance and graduation are not reliable either. We have seen other timeliners use assumptions of "18 to 22" as the ages of all cadets, but in canon we have seen people applying for entrance as early as 15, and some personnel taking 6 or 8 year programs, getting held back, graduating early, as well as some returning to training after becoming officers. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal/Vertical? Edit

Could we PLEASE change this to a vertical table? I'm bringing it up here because such a change has been reverted in the past.

Honestly, while I know time lines are "supposed to be" done horizontally, I think the current format is incredibly annoying. The wiki format is designed for scrolling down, not sidways. I recommend having a simple table, with all decades even if there aren't series there (so as to indicate passage of time), and several horizontal slots to accommodate multiple series at the same time. This would convey exactly the same information in a much cleaner way.

This would also have the advantage of having much simpler code. – Cleanse 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode resolution Edit

It's great to see how the seasons line up, but has anybody figured this out yet? If you were going to watch every episode/movie ever made in "chronological" order, for instance, what is the last TNG episode you watch before you watch the first episode of DS9, or what episode of DS9 do you watch before you wtch the first episode of Voyager, etc? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

That information gets broken down by year...starting in 2369 and ending 2375, for the overlapping series. --Alan 05:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So then DS9 S01E01 is the same "Day" as TNG S06E01, and VOY S01E01 is the same "Day" as DS9 S03E01? How do you line up DS9 S04 with VOY S02 then? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

No. As already pointed out by Alan, the episodes are listed chronologically on the years pages. Read them.– Cleanse 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what he meant... when he said "broken down by year" I took that to mean that we only had resolution up to the year... The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Merge and reformat Edit

This page is pretty useless as is, since the fixed width makes the table unreadable unless you use the pop up. I'm also not sure why we need this, with every episode and film article having links to the next released episode and all the year pages covering the years episodes and films take place. If we need this, I don't see why it couldn't just be in a background section on timeline, and I think having it there makes it more accessible. - Archduk3 00:35, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see the benefit of keeping it in a background note on timeline as a quick reference for new fans. As I said above, that would be better accomplished by some kind of vertical table. Also Star Trek should be added. ;-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 01:35, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline TableEdit

In the table that lists the timeline of TV series and films, why is the year 2063 not listed for First Contact to be place under. The bulk of that movie takes place in that year. Chronologically those are the first events in the Star Trek timeline as far as the fictional space flight stuff goes. The film Star Trek is listed in several years. T-888 (talk) 05:04, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

For the same reasons that 1968, 1996, and 2032 aren't: the timeline only covers the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th centuries because it's only there to give a rough timeline of where each series and film is chronologically. The table is already big enough without adding the 20th and 21st centuries, which only would need to be added for parts of a few episodes and a film. - Archduk3 05:35, January 2, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Got ya. I was just wondering. I was thinking since 2063 was an important year in the Trek Universe that it should be included, but if we added it then we would have to add 1968, 1986, 1996 and all the other years that the different crews visit throught the course of their series/movies. T-888 (talk) 06:08, January 2, 2013 (UTC)