Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You

READ MORE

Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Advertisement
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Ten ForwardRepresentation of stardates (Reply | Watch)

Stardates, reference stardates and SFC years by themselves are very opaque. Dates like 3045.6, 45635.2, 1/9709.01, and 2105 SFC are inconsistent and don't make a lot of sense. Few readers can understand them right off, and to do so they need to look up corroborating events or perform calculations. Years like 2267, 2368, c. 2250s, or c. 2157 are familiar and give an excellent sense of when and how long. Though a clever way to fudge continuity or historical errors, stardates are poor way to manage chronology on this wiki. Older timelines using reference stardates and SFC also need to be updated to suit the canonical timeline of modern Trek.

These dates can be determined by correlation to other, dated events, or with calibration and calculation. We shouldn't have anything against them for being unofficial calculations — bear in mind that just about every date we have for the tv series is based off fan-based calculations from given dates and times in the series. These dates are already in widespread, common use across Memory Alpha and Memory Beta.

I believe we should, where possible, supply best estimates for these stardates and outdated timelines. These should accompany the given date in brackets, to make it clear that its only an estimate and preserve the primacy of the original data. For example:

This has already been common practice on Memory Beta for many years now, used by many editors, in good and bad ways (poor estimates, replacing the actual date), but I'd like it to be accepted for common use. Not every page and date reference has to have an estimate, but if an editor makes the effort to determine a date for the reader's benefit, it should be kept in place. -- BadCatMan (talk) 04:54, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bump. I'm looking for some discussion from the community. What do you think? -- BadCatMan (talk) 10:10, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Most reference stardates do not have clear equivalence to canon years or dates. I think that in a lot of the cases where reference stardates are being presented with equivalence to a canon year are pure supposition and a violation of our standard operating procedure regarding formulating speculation as main article fact. As such, these should be removed and not perpetuated by any standard requiring them. -- Captain MKB 14:18, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement