Talk:Timeline of Star Trek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Trek Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Missing elements

Missing timeline elements:

  1. Voyager crew goes back into the 20th century.
  2. Archer and T'Pol go back to the 20th century.

--[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Voyager goes back into 1997 or 1999.. something like that... of course, it seems kind of odd since nobody seemed to bothered about the eugenics war during that period... - Mattt

What about the Edith Keeler episode? What year was that, 1934 or something? Adam Bishop 01:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the timeline being split as it is, based on the events of Generations. Can we really say that everything since Generations didn't actually happen in the "normal" Star Trek universe? It makes much more sense to assume that Picard's Nexus adventure erased the crew being killed and replaced it with the timeline that followed. -Branddobbe 06:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Branddobbe. The Nexus is its own reality. Allemannster

Where does this "The United Federation of Temporal Dimensions" come from?

[edit] 1st Captain of Enterprise NCC1701

The timeline says Enterprise was launched under Captain Pike. However, the star-trek encyclopedia claims the 1st captain was Captain Robert April, although to my recollection (i dont have the book here) no details are given, shouldnt this be mentioned somewhere though? BFS

The NCC-1701 was not launched under Captain Pike. It was launched under a captain before him, and an Animated Series episode says that it is Captain Robert April. However, TAS is not considered to be cannon. That having been said, there is no evidence that Captain Pike was the first captain of the NCC-1701. --myselfalso 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The paperback book titled The Making of Star Trek, which I recall, has Captain Robert April as the Enterprise Captain prior to Captain Pike. There was controversy about using the name, April, and the more masculine name of Chris Pike was used.

[edit] 23rd and 24th Century dates

The dates given for the Original Series and its movies, as well as for the Next Generation era series, are wrong.

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan it was stated several times that the film was set 15 years after the original episode, not 18 as this chronology asserts. The fact that this was stated on screen, by both Khan Noonien Singh and Captain James T. Kirk, makes this fact canon and causes it to override any other information stated in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the "official" Star Trek chronology, or anywhere else. If either of the dates stated by the article is correct, the other has to be wrong: if Star Trek II is set in 2285, then "Space Seed" was set in 2270; if "Space Seed" was set in 2267, then Star Trek II is set in 2282.

In the movie McCoy gives Kirk a bottle of wine that is vintage 2283...meaning that the movie cannot possibly be set any earlier than that year. This rules out 2282 as the year in which the movie takes place, which in turn rules out 2267 as the year in which "Space Seed"--and indeed, all of the Original Series's second season--is set. Furthermore, in response to Kirk's apparent surprise at the year of the wine's vintage, McCoy says, "Well it takes this stuff some time to ferment." That would seem to suggest that the movie takes place considerably later than 2283, though it cannot be set any later than 2293 on account of the very specific date given for the movie Star Trek Generations.

Star Trek Generations further establishes that nine years before the fateful launch of the Enterprise-B in 2293, Kirk was on Earth, retired from Starfleet, having an affair with a woman named Antonia. Given the fact that the second, third, fourth, and fifth Star Trek movies all seem to take place within a few months of each other, and that there is no indication of Kirk having retired from Starfleet between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI (in fact it even seems that he and his crew embarked upon a THIRD five-year mission during that time), this affair could only have taken place between the first and second Star Trek movies--making 2284 the absolute earliest that Star Trek II could have taken place. This fits with both the date on McCoy's bottle of wine and his statement about the wine, though it also means that the first episode of the Original Series could not have taken place any earlier than 2268.

Therefore, while it is plausible that Star Trek II is indeed set in 2285, even so it still means that most of the Original Series was set in the 2270s, not the 2260s. I don't know where the assertion that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is set a year prior to "The Man Trap" comes from, but even if that is the case, the dates for that episode, "The Cage," all three seasons of the Original Series, the dates for the Animated Series, and the date of the first Star Trek movie need to be revised.

Here is one possibility, which makes makes the "some time" during which McCoy's wine was allowed to ferment as long as it possibly can be (three years), and also even takes into account the (unfounded) assertion that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is set some months before the actual first episode of the original series:

"The Cage": 2259
"Where No Man Has Gone Before": 2270
Star Trek: The Original Series: 2270-2273
—"Space Seed": 2271
Star Trek: The Animated Series: 2273-2274
Final year of First 5-year mission: 2274-2275
18 month Enterprise refit: 2275-2277
Star Trek: The Motion Picture: 2277
Kirk's 2nd 5-year mission: 2277-2282
Kirk's first retirement/affair with Antonia: 2282-2284
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: March 2286 (Kirk's birthday, on which the events of the movie begin, is said to be March 22)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: March/April 2286
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: June/July 2286
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: July/August 2286
Kirk's 3rd 5-Year Mission (?): 2286-2291
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: 2291
Star Trek Generations: 2293/2371

I am simply curious about the birth date of Worf. Worf appears as a Colonel in Star Trek VI, taking place 2293. But, then they have him not being born until 2340. What a stud.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbary (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The dates for The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager are also wrong, though in that case only by about 7 months. Unlike during the Original Series, the stardates in the TNG-era series progress forward in a seemingly solid direction. Certain episodes would seem to indicate that, in contradiction to what this article as well as the "official" Star Trek chronology claim, each season of each series begins in June and ends in May. This is the only way to explain why, for example, Wesley Crusher appears to be at the end of a school term in the spring in "The First Duty" (TNG), why it is summer in France in "Family" (TNG) and in North America in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" (DS9), and why First Contact Day (April 5, per Star Trek: First Contact) is being celebrated at the beginning of "Homestead" (VOY). Taking this into consideration, the dates for the TNG-era series are:

Star Trek: The Next Generation: 2363-2370 (incidentally, the non-canonical Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual also says that the Enterprise-D was launched in 2363)
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: 2368-2375
Star Trek: Voyager: 2370-2377.

Take into account that Voyager's first season was little more than half as long as the typical season of Star Trek, so most of that season was actually set in 2371. It was clearly stated to be 2371 by the time of "Eye of the Needle," but the Stardates would seem to indicate that Voyager became lost in the Delta Quadrant before the 24th Century events of Star Trek Generations took place. Statements by the Voyager crew throughout the series about how long they've actually been in the Delta Quadrant can be interpreted to be rounding, since Voyager actually spent 6 1/2 years in the Delta Quadrant, not 7.

I keep on trying to correct these erroneous dates anywhere on Wikipedia that I find them, but there are just too many articles that refer to them, and furthermore the changes that I make seem to keep on getting reverted somehow...I'm posting this here in the hopes that somehow, finally, some serious action can be taken to correct these errors. AD69.138.38.49

"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it." Adam Bishop 08:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Making up your own chronology is Wikipedia:Original research, which is why these keep getting reverted. Morwen - Talk 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

March seems too early for ST II. Starfleet Academy graduates in March? Should be more like June, and Kirk's birthday would be in June, too. 153.2.246.30 (talk)

[edit] Phase II?

Should Star Trek: Phase II be added to the series side bar? 24.158.134.254 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New content

I've added a bunch of content explaining the historical development of this timeline as a timeline. I am pondering what sort of timeline we actually want at the bottom. I am tempted to remove some backstory information (in particular, backstory for species which appear only in one episode and have no impact.) Backstory directly relevant to Earth, the Federation or the main characters would stay (although i'm dubious about listing all those random birthdates). Morwen - Talk 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I here made such an edit. (I then reverted myself: really only did this to get the diff) How does this look in terms of getting rid of irrelevant backstory from random episodes, whilst leaving the backstory to the actual show? Morwen - Talk 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I did this. I also added a lot of episode names and even added some things (destruction of Enterprise-D, that sort of thing). I am pondering whether it might look nicer in a table for the heavily crowded TNG era (column for TNG events, column for DS9 events, column for Voyager events, I am thinking). Morwen - Talk 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Okuda and 2270

The Okuda timeline currently puts TMP in 2271: since the end of the five year mission was established as 2270 by Voyager; this implies that TMP ought to be moved to 2272. Does anyone know if this has been done in any Okudaish work yet? startrek.com seems to still claim 2271 for TMP. Morwen - Talk 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space probe timeline

So, we have

  • 1969: Apollo XI
  • ?: Pioneer 10
  • ?: Space Shuttle Enterprise
  • 1996: DY-100
  • 1999: Voyager VI (Chronology guess)
  • 2002: Nomad (Chronology guess)
  • 2018: sleeper ships obselete
  • 2032: Ares IV, a manned Earth-Mars probe
  • 20??: first manned Earth-Saturn probe
  • 2037: Charybdis tries to leave the Solar System
  • 2063: Zephram Cochrane invents Warp Drive
  • c. 2065: SS Valiant launched for galactic rim
  • 2067: Friendship 1 launched
  • 2069: SS Conestoga launched

Am I missing anything? Morwen - Talk 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term space probe is generally used for unmanned craft. As this is not purely a list unmanned craft, I would stick to space ship.
Kirk originally mistook Khan's ship for DY-500 class ship. Probably too much detail for this list to mention it though.
Historically, Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972. (Not sure if you're looking for adjustments in the timeline to make all the fictional stuff fit.) Enterprise was not a fully functional orbiter (merely a testbed), and rolled out in 1976. Columbia first launched in 1981. --Rindis 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, not planning on using that wording. Just trying to have what we have established in the timeline until the start of the 22nd century, and what needs adding to the article. I am aware of the real life dates, but I could easily see Star Trek push them backwards or something (the opening credits of Enterprise depicts the Space Shuttle Enterprise doing something it never did, for example). Morwen - Talk 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Hadn't known about Enterprise. Looks like the Saturn mission was only specified as 'early 21st century' on air. Don't have my copy of Chronology to hand, so I have no idea what it says. 2037: 'tries to launch the Solar System'? I think there's a typo there. It seems a little odd that sleeper ships would be obsolete when we aren't even sending manned missions to places far enough away to consider them yet.... Don't see anything missing. (Especially now that I look it up, and find that the DY-500 is a 22nd century design....) --Rindis 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The timeline of early 21st century spaceships is a mess, basically. Khan's apparently interstellar-capable DY-100 class ship has ended up far more advanced than any of the later stuffs for 50 years (obviously we can invent whatever rationalisations we like for this, and indeed people have). Schneider's website contains commentary on the issue, which I think might be sourceable (obviously, attributed to him in body text). Morwen - Talk 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Star Trek: The Animated Series?

I know it is not canon! But it's still Star Trek, I am not here to talk about Star Trek: The Animated Series, or TAS, being canon or not (but, it should be!), because I do a lot of that on Memory Alpha, but please lets add on TAS on the Timeline and especially the TV Show sidebar (because it is a TV Series)! --67.170.207.109 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, if we do add Star Trek: The Animated Series on the TV Show sidebar and Timeline, the TV series was from 1973-1974, 2 seasons, 22 episodes, and the the setting of the year is 2269 and 2270. --67.170.207.109 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This is trying to mirror the Okuda timeline, not invent one of our own. If there is some reliable source which puts TAS between 2269 and 2270 then we can note this. Also, I have reverted your edit about the Okuda Star Trek Chronology. It still, right or wrong, dates TMP as 2271, no new edition has been released dating TMP to 2272 or 2273. Altering the article to make it say that the Okuda timeline gives 2272 as the TMP date is just straightforward wrong. Morwen - Talk 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And then, I spot even worse edits. The article gave an outline of the Spaceflight Chronology/FASA timeline, and this was changed to put in the Okuda-based timeline! Without changing the text around it. Utter nonsense. Morwen - Talk 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon Creek

I don't think it was entirely clear that the story T'Pol told actually happened - for one thing, she said it didn't. In this case 1957 shouldn't list a Vulcan scout ship as having actually visited Earth. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)