Memory Alpha talk:Projects/Episode data project/timeline

About the basic timeline order

This is the Cid-sponsored, and currently psuedo-operating, timeline browser method where each episode only exists at one place in the timeline. The alternative is to put each episode at every spot where a significant portion of the episode occured, plus where the present is during that episode. See Memory Alpha:Episode data project/issues.

Staying with this basic method for now: The current (Dec 27) data in the sidebars is off quite a bit, and the TOS data does not even exist in the sidebars. So, when this page is in the "correct" order, the bot willl fill in the sidebar data based on the content of this page.

All changes to the data itself should be sourced on this talk page. Order changes based on the data, or formatting of the data do not need to be mentioned here. --Bp 14:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

About changing to a more advanced method

→ Moved from Memory Alpha:Episode data project/issues:

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a discussion page or not, but just move this comment if you think it's necessary. I think having an episode appear twice or more often in the timeline just because two dates were given would make the browsing experience overly complex and thus much less useful than now. It should be sufficient to order episodes by, for example, their starting date or the first (and most often only) date given. In what cases would it make any difference whether the second half of an episode A would "happen" later than a complete episode B of a different series? -- Cid Highwind 16:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, I just made a list of issues. Anyway, yes I think that there would be some value in placing it in he timeline at every time that was depicted. At least the important ones. Prolly not the 40s and 60s for "Past Tense, Part I" or somehting like that. I'm not sure how that will work though, as there aren't even proper main dates for most episodes. --Bp 17:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the browse-thingy in the episode sidebar, or are we talking about the Timeline pages here? -- Cid Highwind 00:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The sidebar. The idea was for there to be a date bar with arrows for each of the main places in time depicted. for instance "Past Tense, Part I" would have something like:

←	48481.2 (2371)	→
←	September 1, 2024	→

Not quite right looking here, but you can image what it looks like in the sidebar. If it is just going to be the main present spot in the timeline like it is now, it will be the same as airdate order for 90% of them. Only TOS/TAS are different, and I'm not sure they were meant to be. It's just a symptom of sloppy writting when it comes to stardate consistency. --Bp 11:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the first items on this list, "Storm Front", make a good case for the advanced "slot" method. --Bp 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So we're definitely not talking about several entries per episode, just because slightly different dates were mentioned (just to make up an example: stardates 1000.1, 1000.5, 1001.2 mentioned at different points in the episode, with another episode taking place at 1000.8) - we're, basically, talking about additional dates realized through time travel only? -- Cid Highwind 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, time travel or orb experience like "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night", or major flashbacks like "Necessary Evil", or the one in Odo's memory: "Things Past". Definitely Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, "All Good Things...", and "Past Tense, Part I". Stuff like that. --Bp 16:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Killing Game

Changed "The Killing Game" stardate from nothing to "Unknown", and moved it to right before The Killing Game II in the order. The fought for several days over the two parts, so I didn't think that Part I should have the stardate from Part II. About the move, Part I had to happen after "Retrospect." --Bp 06:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Order change?

Is there a reason why 2254 through 2269 is placed before 2151 through 2155? Just wondering.--Tim Thomason 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the TOS timeline is not properly merged with the others. This is because the date was completely new when I made this page the first time, not extracted from the old data like the others. I was meaning to fix it, but there was an idea and talk about a more advanced timeline browser system, and some other things. And yes, the data is wrong in the sidebars. If it gets fixed on this page, it can be fixed in the sidebars automatically. --Bp 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviations...?

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but: What do "wsDate", "cslnStardates", and "cslnYears" mean? And is there a key to their meaning on the page, or have I missed it because it isn't there? --Defiant 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Memory Alpha:Episode data project/fields. Although, cslnStardates, and cslnYears may become obsolete. --Bp 01:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! (I now understand what's going on!) :-) --Defiant 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dating Order

I am confused, (with one detail, about may of the sidebar related details) why are episodes placed out or order, not from the series, but some of them in date? For example, Broken Bow, where the present was said to be April, 2151, is listed after episodes that take place in May, September, and November, 2151. --Terran Officer 05:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Visitor stardate

What is the source that says that "The Visitor" takes place in stardate 49034.7? The episode itself doesn't mention a stardate. MoffRebus^{My Talk} 14:38, May 14, 2014 (UTC)