Well I thought I did something clever at set up the references to display in two columns, all the locations, then all the other stuff to the right of that. It worked in preview but not now it’s saved. Can anyone else see it as two columns?/ Does anyone know how to make it work? -- 8of5 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- How about this one? I used wikitable syntax. --Ensign Fridan 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Clever, good job. -- 8of5 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Dating[]
Any idea when this book is set? The article here says stardate 42965.4, which would correspond to 2365. But my copy dates Data's report to 82965.4, 40 years later.
Of course, Data's a Lt Cmdr and he's on the Enterprise-D, and this was published in 1989, so the 42965.4/2365 date is obviously the correct one. But depictions of some worlds seem to flip-flop, with Rigel VII for example being either a primitive Kaylar world avoided by all, or a Federation member with an English-named ambassador, Daniel Cheney. BadCatMan 07:10, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
- The book framing letter is set in 2364 or 2365. The stardate shouldn't really be translated as it's obviously not part of the 4xxxx system - it should be treated as a stardate of a different reckoning and the real book date should be honored. I think someone was trying to rationalize the stardate, which is not in keeping with what we do here - we shouldn't alter stardates to match our preconceived systems of how they should work, we should present them as the source did -- Captain MKB 07:53, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Understand completely and agree that it should stay as printed. A pity though, as 42965.4 corresponds to late 2365, and to TNG Season 2 in 1989, the same year this book was printed. It looks a lot like a typo; otherwise it's in the same format as late 24th century stardates. Should we make a note? -- BadCatMan 08:30, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
- In the "background" section is fine for that, that the date doesn't fit with the rest of the TNG stardates...
- Stardates as a whole are a tricky issue - a lot of fans have their own "systems" for figuring them out so they figure that it's a pity that they don't rationalize -- but the truth is that the majority of Trek stardates cannot be reconciled with any known system, even within canon. -- Captain MKB 12:50, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I've made a note.
- Though TOS used them essentially at random, some stardate formats were created with their own internal systems: the one created for TNG and used from then on, and the Reference stardate system in the FASA rpg. They're usually internally consistent, just not with each other. BadCatMan 13:56, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, the idea of the planet Rigel VII being dually populated by Federation citizens and also the barbaric Kaylars perfectly goes along with the unrelated Early Voyages series where the civlized government wished to join the Federation, but the conservative Kaylar institution violently opposed the action, causing the attack on Pike's team.
- And the TNG stardates are a puzzle in and of themselves, as they don't always bear the consistency people ascribe to them - the length of days varies considerably (sometimes 00003.X but sometimes not) as do the orders (if you numerically order them, Tasha Yar is in action in several stardates after the one she died on), and so forth. An the reference stardate system has its own flaws too since it was used by FASA, Spaceflight Chronology, Diane Carey, and also Shane Johnson for Pocket (year dates in TWotF before the 24th century should be reference SD system as they ascribe to the SFC dating for 21st/22nd century milestones, etc.) -- Captain MKB 16:37, April 30, 2011 (UTC)