Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.


"we do not note the mere appearance or use of something in STO"

Why do we note the mere appearance or use of the same thing in Star Fleet Technical Manual and novels, but not STO? --Nike (talk) 22:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Those instances are not just noting their use; the Tech manual note is explaining that they were different and were used by as well as others. The novels explain the significant detail of converting from a Gregorian calendar and the "hyperdimensional distance averaging". The STO note was simply that stardates were continued from the TNG era- i.e. their mere use in STO- without providing some significant revelation about them. We use that requirement because virtually every page here could have "This appeared in STO" in it.
The intricacies of how stardates in the game compare to real world time in STO are not germaine to this site, as we are not the STO wiki. 31dot (talk) 02:04, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I added that part about at the same time I added the STO section. But I take from your statement that if I gave some significant revelation about them, such as how they actually differ from TNG (they were only "roughly" continuous) then it would be OK? --Nike (talk) 05:56, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I might suggest that it would be better to put your energies into improving Memory Beta's article on stardates(as they do better cover content from non-canon works like games) but if there is some major, significant difference about them that doesn't just have to do with their continuance from the TNG era (such as noting when a particular stardate is reached) and isn't just noting how the game itself works(which, again, is outside of our mission) it might be OK. 31dot (talk) 09:39, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

FASA and GoogleEdit

I thought I'd get feedback ahead of time before editing the article. FASA used "reference stardates" like Franz Joseph and However, they prefixed a digit and a slash to represent the century, starting with the year 2000, so January 1, 2000, was 0/0001.01 and the Organian Peace Treaty was signed on 2/0801.24, or January 24, 2208. (This system was introduced around the release of TMP, before the current chronology was established.) Preceding centuries are negative, so "Where No Man Has Gone Before"aired -1/6608.22 (The day my sister was born) and the Declaration of Independence was -3/7607.04. I know that this was a licensed work, but so was Joseph's book.

Google Calendar uses stardates based upon the ideas of Andrew Main. Each day covers 5.00 stardates, 10000 stardates (2000 days) make up an "issue". Issue numbers are prefixed in brackets. TOS was issue [19], [0]0000 was January 4, 2162, (when he speculated the Federation was founded) and today started at [-28]7155.00. --Nike (talk) 01:39, August 10, 2012 (UTC) SD 0/1208.09, [-28]7160.33

The Google thing should not be on this page; it could be mentioned on Star Trek parodies and pop culture references. The FASA reference could go under Apocrypha, as it is a licensed work. 31dot (talk) 08:41, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Out of order StardatesEdit

The article mentions several inconsistencies concerning stardates however it fails or neglects to address a most obvious one, namely that Stardates sometimes appear to go backwards. This is especially noticeable in TNG season 1. If someone watches the episodes in stardate order, Wesley Crusher is on the bridge before Picard makes him an acting ensign, while Yar returns from the dead in 2 or 3 episodes. I think this phenomenon would deserve at least a mention, and I am really curious whether any licensed source addressed it eg. that stardates are non-linear or sometimes are reverted. Does anyone else share this opinion? MoffRebusMy Talk 18:52, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

If nobody objects I am adding a reference. MoffRebusMy Talk 09:13, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Stardates in Star Trek (alternate reality)Edit

2233 0 4 = 2233.04 = .04*365 days after January 1, 2233. That would be January 15, 2258. If the digits after the decial place were going to be days in the year, the stardate would have appeared as 2233.004 for January 4, 2233.

2259.55 would be July 20, 2259.

Tedpronj (talk) 05:38, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

All we know is that Orci has said the additional 0 "could have been an error" and that the intention was that days are from .1 to .365. So that is what we go with. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:49, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Leap Years. Edit

would 2260 be a leap year? Jkirk8907 (talk) 05:28, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

I think so, though leap years have not been mentioned in reference to Stardates, I think. 31dot (talk) 08:05, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

i'm just wondering because i forget how long it was in between leap years. Jkirk8907 (talk) 08:55, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

alternate reality comics dates Edit

Seems to me that the alternate reality comics date database is sort of unnecessary and a bit excessive to this page in the bgsection, and should probably be somewhere else in MA, like a section here: Star Trek: Ongoing for example. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:30, February 28, 2014 (UTC)

If it can be made into a separate page, say A list of alternate reality stardates (analogous to the lists of starship decks or dedication plaques), as the creator of this list I'd be OK with that. The point is to present all the facts about their usage in one place, so that the reader can immediately make a number of observations:
  • The .0x stardates are outliers; they probably won't be used in the future
  • No stardate fraction has more than three digits, consistent with Orci's rule
  • No triple-digit fraction is greater than .366, consistent with Orci's rule
  • At least one official publication (the IDW timeline) confirms the day-of-the-year interpretation, while others are consistent with it
Also, if the readers are writers of licensed works, they can use a detailed list to choose appropriate stardate ranges for their publications, without risking overlapping or otherwise inconsistent numbers. -- 19:39, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Or just Alternate reality stardates. --Pseudohuman (talk) 20:22, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that most of the alternate reality stardates we have are from apocryphal materials... I don't see the requirement for a separate page... simply some cleanup on this page. -- sulfur (talk) 21:38, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
Apocryphal isn't the word I'd use, since Orci is directly involved in those comics; there is no reason to believe he'd choose to revise but a fraction of the tangential events explored by Johnson. I also made sure they are in the background section, not in the canon section, which purposefully doesn't mention examples from the comics. If the table is split up in any manner, it would defeat its purpose, and we'd risk unnecessary inconsistencies in licensed works. -- 22:05, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
By the terms of MA, they're still apocryphal. And that's the terms that matter for discussion here. -- sulfur (talk) 00:43, March 2, 2014 (UTC)
You can't lump this together with the hundreds of novels produced with no input from the past producers. This is clearly a much higher level of approval and must be taken into account. And anyway, since there are only four "pure-canon" stardates, it wouldn't shorten the table by much. You'll only have inconvenienced the readers, who can see the sources for themselves and decide for themselves how much to trust them. Consider it background information, based on the background information that Orci is discussing these books with Johnson and that Orci gave us the three stardate quotes at the beginning.
(Anyway, I'm in no mood for further discussion. If the table isn't preserved intact on this or another page, without an arbitrary split based on MA's perception of canon, I'll just stop contributing and let this section go out of date; an equivalent list will then be available elsewhere.) -- 05:56, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion since we have real world pov articles for all these apocryphal works about the alt reality, this would in my opinion still be okay as a "supplemental timeline" for all of them, when you want to look up in what order do the comics, novels, videogames and canon-films fit together for example. --Pseudohuman (talk) 08:11, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek II,III,IV Star Dates Edit

Star Trek II, III, IV & V

I was thinking about something: Star Trek II, III, and IV were effectively part of a trilogy. Star Trek V happened to occur shortly after Star Trek IV. Considering each whole number is effectively a day, and a decimal is a fraction of a day this would mean that

Star Trek II would end approximately 11.3 days after the start of the movie (8130.3 to 8141.6)

Star Trek III would begin approximately 80 days after ST II began

Star Trek IV would begin approximately 179.7 days after Star Trek III began and 259.7 days since Star Trek II began.

Star Trek V would begin approximately 64.1 days after Star Trek IV, and 323.8 days after Star Trek II began

William Shatner's birthday is March 22, and so is James T. Kirk: With that said...

Star Trek II starts on March 22 at 07:12 hrs

Star Trek III starts on June 10 at 07:12 hrs

Star Trek IV starts on December 07 at 24:00/00:00 hrs

Star Trek V starts on February 8 at 19:12 hrs 02:50, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like fan-based speculation and original research to me. I'll revert the edits to the articles, until this is discussed here. TOS and film-era stardates are used highly inconsistently. This level of speculation and rationalization should not be used in Memory Alpha. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:39, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
Pseudohuman is quite correct; the mechanics of the stardate system (especially the TOS era one) has not been spelled out in canon sources. 31dot (talk) 10:27, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
I added a "dating" section to each film from 2-6, to establish the possible years when each film could have taken place and the reasons why we accept the specific year. The rest of the films are more obvious and don't need such a section. Some datings are a bit uncertain, but I think that when several official bg sources suggest a year that fits within the possible years where the film could have taken place, we can go with it. producer's (retroactive) intent and all that... --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:43, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Motion Picture dates Edit

I think there is a mistake on this page and other pages, related to Motion Picture.

The stardate timetable says that TAS ended and Enterprise returned to Earth in 2270, and Motion Picture occured in mid-2270. It doesn't seem right, cause in Motion Picture it's directly said that repair of Enterprise took 18 months, and Kirk was on Earth even more - two and a half years.

Stardate 48702 from "Non Sequitur"Edit

What stardate is this? I'd like to make a redirect to the appropriate year. --LauraCC (talk) 18:07, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

Traditionally the 48XXX stardates are assumed to relate to the year 2371. Kennelly (talk) 18:21, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not listed in the 2371 events listing either. --LauraCC (talk) 18:24, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

List of all known stardates Edit

In the German MA in de:Sternzeit, I've begun a list with all known stardates. Currently I am at the TOS/TAS/TMP stardates. I know this will be a pretty big list. Maybe there is interest in Memory Alpha English to make such a list, too. --Mark McWire (talk) 17:28, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

It actually makes me curious to see if all of the stardates are the same in both German and English. -- sulfur (talk) 17:38, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the fact, that the decimal point in the German language is a comma and no dot, the numbers are for the most part identical. Translation errors are always there. Especially in the case of the lip-synchronic translation sometimes formulations were unnecessarily modified. --Mark McWire (talk) 20:20, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

No evidence for stardate 2260.132 Edit

Note that this page isn't about setting timelines, so it wouldn't be appropriate to reverse-engineer stardates such as 2260.132 for the end of STID, using the Day 966 reference from STB, especially since we don't even know for certain if Day 1 was shown in STID. The idea here is to collects stardate facts, not speculation, so that readers can speculate as they like and create new, consistent stardates for use in official works if necessary.

Of course, it goes without saying that if an official source were to come up with stardate 2260.132, we can put it in and use that official source as reference, but not STID or STB. -- PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 10:27, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

The alternate reality dates are in a known, and more importantly, consistent system, and all the numbers involved are coming directly from the films. The rest is math and policy. You're welcome to add a note about how those dates require some thinking, but to not include them in the article because we somehow can't believe what we've been told is just dumb. - Archduk3 16:50, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the article, Orci said the decimal is .1 to .365, though “pure canon” by MA standards would suggest it’s .00 to .99, given 2233-zero-four, 2230.06, and 226X.XX on a readout. So if you want to be consistent, one stardate is maybe 2263.04 and the other probably isn’t 2260.132.

Even if we leave out IDW’s inconsistent stardates, we just don’t know enough to be sure; the table collects facts and presents them to the reader, along with the most likely behind-the-scenes (not necessarily canon!) calculation of day/month. If you try to use it in canon articles, it’s wrong. Maybe the whole section would be better suited to Memory Beta anyway, given the preponderance of comic data, but it’s clearly in appendices, intended as a resource for anyone trying to keep track of stardates given thus far, not as a timeline with speculative stardates included. —-PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 17:11, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

What about leap years? --LauraCC (talk) 17:14, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Orci never said, but it would be weird if he wanted to remove leap years (which the Okudas haven’t), so the day probably reaches .366 in leap years. —-PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 17:19, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

It would throw day counts out of whack. --LauraCC (talk) 17:21, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
[edit conflict] - IDW isn't a factor here, since the datapoints in question aren't from a IDW source, and we aren't talking about the "canon" section of the article. Based on what we've been told by production sources about how stardates work in the AR, and what was said in the films, those dates are correct. That's the end of it so far as listing them is concerned. If you want to add a note about the math involved, go ahead, but those dates are far more in line with MA's mission than the IDW ones, since at least part of the information comes from on-screen sources, and it's not "speculation" to do the math for the readers. - Archduk3 17:26, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.