Talk:Timeline

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Contents 1 A Meta Timeline? 2 Years-Seasons? 3 Some thoughts on the timeline pages 4 James Dixon's Timeline 5 A Timeline as A Table 6 Chronology (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward) 6.1 No events years 6.2 Apocrypha 6.3 Organization 6.4 First time seen 6.5 Complete year pages

[edit] A Meta Timeline?

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 brithdays-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 inconsitancy in the timeline with that? --TOSrules 03:29, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)

[edit] Years-Seasons?

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)

[edit] Some thoughts on the timeline pages

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)

[edit] James Dixon's Timeline

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

http://us.share.geocities.com/dswtrek/TREK15.TXT

Ver.17: http://phoenixinn.iwarp.com/startrek/files/trek17.zip

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.

NotWillDecker

[edit] A Timeline as A Table

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)

[edit] Chronology (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)

[edit] No events years

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)

[edit] Apocrypha

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. Bartel^talk 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)

[edit] Organization

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)

[edit] First time seen

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)

[edit] Complete year pages

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)