Page function

I'm just thinking - shouldn't this page deal more with the actual alternate timelines themselves, rather than simply stating when an alternate timeline appeared in Trek? That's what I thought it was aimed at being. After all, we've had mentions of alternate timelines popping up in the main timeline (taken directly from the Chronology, which does this as well), and it might be interesting to include things like a timeline of alternate events in say, "Twilight" or "Endgame".

In addition, some of these episodes mentioned are not alternate timelines as such, but appearances of temporal anomalies and/or time travel occurances. The Mirror Universe episodes would not be an alternate timeline in the strictest sense, since they are considered to be a separate universe of their own (same with the alternatives portrayed in "Parallels"). -- DarkHorizon 14:36, 1 Jan 2004 (PST)

Anyone? -- DarkHorizon 10:47, 20 Jan 2004 (PST)

I think we should keep the list of AT appearances, but have at least one or two sentences per entry to actually clarify what exactly the AT is in this episode, and what happened to it in relation to the "original" timeline... For example:
  • TOS:COTEOF - When McCoy travels to the past, he accidentally changes the history by saving the life of Edith Keeler. This leads to [...], observed by Kirk and Spock in the present. They also travel to the past and restore the original timeline.
-- Cid Highwind 01:05, 2 Apr 2004 (PST)
And of course mention whether the time-line in question is open or closed. -- Redge 10:40, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Seems to me that an alternate timeline is something in which our own universe is physically altered, whereas a parallel universe is exactly that -- a separate universe unaffected by changes in ours. To wit, in order to "return" from an alternate timeline, you have to "right" the course of history, e.g., stop a change from happening, or profoundly limit its effects. That's because if you don't, "your" universe simply does not exist; it's replaced by something else. However, with a parallel universe like the Mirror Universe, it exists elsewhere, and "your" universe still exists. It is possible to return from it without any alterations necessary. Both continue independent from each other. --DNJimerson 04:01, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Does this episode actually include an alternate timeline? All we have is Daniels mentioning that something "shouldn't have happened that way"... -- Cid Highwind 01:05, 2 Apr 2004 (PST)

Yes, the 'destroyed San Francisco' timeline that Daniels creates by yanking Archer from Enterprise. -- Michael Warren 19:05, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
The beginning premise of Star Trek: Enterprise and the Temporal Cold War is an attempt by the writer's / producers to sort of find a loophole in keeping the integrity of Star Trek intact. By creating events in the first three seasons the way they did, many decades of mistakes, inconstitancies, and budget problems can thus be attributed to an "alternate timeline". Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore admitted as much, that they intend to "clean the slate" to make the burden of maintaining the integrity of Star Trek a little easier for them. So, don't be surprised if episodes like VOY: "Threshold" end up in another timeline in some way.--Mike Nobody 05:24, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Voyage Home

how is voyage home an alernate timeline? for that matter, how is First contact? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Off the top of my head I cannot think of one for ST IV, but First Contact had a visible alternate timeline where the Earth is entirely assimilated by the Borg. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In Voyage Home, Kirk and his crew traveled to the past and brought two whales back, as well as a Scientist with them (whose name escapes me) --Sml 22:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that very breifly in First Contact, the borg managed to assimilate Earth, this was observed as the Enterprise entered the temporal wake, or whatever the heck it was. Then the Enterprise traveled through time and blew up the sphere and helped make First Contact a reality. Then this links to the whole borg-paradox and so on and so-forth. --Curst Saden 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what Cobra already said. --Alan 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a few listed that I can't think of any alternate timelines appearing, but just feature time travel. As far as I can remember, Tommorrow is Yesterday, Assignment Earth, All Our Yesterdays, Times Arrow, and Voyage Home featured time travel, but not alternate timelines. Parralels, and possibly Non Sequitur both featured alternate universes, but not alternate timelines.Icecreamdif 16:23, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


do "many fans" really think that ST:Enterprise took place in an alternate timeline? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Sadly, yes. I've run into enough on here to constitute "many", although that is partly because "many" really is not all that descriptive a number. It could mean 20 people. It isn't like the word "majority". --OuroborosCobra talk 04:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- I think that there's plenty of evidence to contradict the idea that ST:Enterprise is all just a dream (which would be the net result of it taking place in some other timeline). Obviously, the events in the final episode suggest that the crew of the Enterprise-D knew about Archer's missions. I don't think this speculation about "many fans" believing something so radical about a non-canon alternate timeline belongs in this article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

There is lots of evidence we landed on the moon, yet many people still believe we faked it. We are not saying in this article that Enterprise was an alternate timeline, only that a bunch of bat crazy people think it is. --OuroborosCobra talk 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the standard for inclusion in this encyclopedia is "many fans believe it" then we'll have all kinds of misinformation on every page. I can find 20 people who believe that Kirk and Spock were lovers, for example. Does that mean we should put that information on each page where Kirk and Spock are mentioned? I have no problem with this "theory" appearing on the main page for Enterprise, I guess, but it most certainly doesn't belong here on a page about alternate timelines. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Fans don't write canon. --Alan 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Open/closed timelines, and parallel universes

The article acknowledges that the definitions of open and closed alternate timelines given here are not from a canon source, so I assume none is available. Accepting that we have no official definitions and have created our own, I don't think I agree with them. I suggest that we need to differentiate between "alternate timelines" and "parallel universes" (with parallel universes being dealt with exclusively in the separate parallel universe article), and that, second, we drop the distinction between open and closed alternate timelines.

I would suggest that the cruicial difference between the way Star Trek stories have presented alternate timelines and parallel universes is:

  • Parallel universes arise naturally due to different choices, creating a multiverse where all possible choices are naturally played out, each choice and its outcomes in a separate universe. (TNG: "Parallels" supports this)
  • Alternate timelines comprise events played out within our own universe, which are then erased from existence due to interference of some kind (usually time travel-related). Although the knowledge of it may persist in the memory of one or more persons involved, no physical trace remains. (The timeline that proceeded from Ben Sisko's death but then was erased by old Jake Sisko's death in DS9: "The Visitor" is a good example of this)

As for "open" and "closed" alternate timelines, where did this distinction come from? Was the distinction ever made on screen? I don't think it is necessary, because any alternate timeline that was not erased (i.e. remained open) would become the "true" timeline from the in-Star-Trek-universe perspective, and whatever it replaced would be erased (i.e. would be closed) and would be regarded as the "alternate" events. So all alternate timelines - from the in-universe perspective - end up erased and closed, and there is no such thing as an open and alternate timeline (it is merely the "true" timeline). Taduolus 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, something needs to be done with that "disclaimer" section --Alan 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be better to not include this episode on this page? It is mostly likely all an allusion by Q, but we can't be really sure of that. I don't know... --Sml 22:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Q-created reality --Alan 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs rewrite

Almost this entire article is non-canon speculation, with no examples and no citations. Rather than all this nonsense about "open" and "closed" time loops I'd suggest brief descriptions, a reference or two to time travel, and maybe some prominent examples. -- Kingfisher 04:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten a good deal of the article. I have added some examples of alternate timelies and removed the open time-thing. I suspect that this article still will need some major revisions. I will be happy to edit this article further if anyone has some pointers, or just go ahead and fix something that I failed to enter properly. -- Curst saden 1:56 PM 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this edit to be impolite and I also think against MA procedure [1]. In a nuthsell, User:Tim Thomason blanked the entire page, wiping out all edits of all the other users and rewrote from scratch a completely new article. That kind of thing is not what MA is about. We also had similar problem on Starfleet uniform (alternate reality) where the article was blanked and rewritten from the ground up. I'm sure the motives were honest, but that is not the way to write articles. Am I wrong? -FC 03:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Time Travel Episodes

This is a new article that has spawned from the time travel episodes article. Basically there was lots of episodes that couldn't be listed in the original article as there is no actual travelling through time involved - just things that cause us to see an alternate time line.

Only question is do we put in this list episodes those that show an alternate time line as a result of time travelling? (which surely would be them all from the original list?).

--Lantizia 15:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should, though we should approach them in a different way. As I see it we have basically 3 types of "alternative timelines". The cause column only fits to one of them, type 2.
Type 1: The alternative timeline here is the original timeline that naturally exists. At some point in the future someone says I dont like this and goes back and changes things in some way. So the alternative timeline was the original timeline that was collapsed out.
Type 2: Someone goes back in time and changes things. A new alternative timeline forms, but someone from the original collapsed timeline remains to go back after them and restores the timeline more or less to the original shape. So the alternative timeline here was an alternative version that would have existed if the timeline was not restored.
Type 3: A complete alternative reality that exist simultaneously separate from the main timeline due to quantum physics subspace domains, negative universes etc. Includes all the mirror universe, parallels, the non sequitur-reality, remember me-bubble reality, fluidic spaces etc. stuff.
A cause column in type 2 would be "Edith Keeler was not killed", "Phoenix destroyed before launch". Type 1 and 3 are simply the original timeline or a parallel plane to it. You might attribute cause to the type 1 as "Voyager was not able to collapse slipstream" "Voyager was not able to use the transwarp hub to travel to Earth" "Sisko was not able to dodge energy blast". etc. Seems a little strange to say it like that. Perhaps we should have a separate list for the "alternative realities" as those all seem to me to be simply regions in the trek "multiverse". --Pseudohuman 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this article is for instances in an episode that through the use of time travel or not... we get to see an alternative timeline of some description. However this article should exclude parallel timelines which are infact a Parallel universe (maybe a new article Parallel universe episodes).

However if the episode shows this altered timeline, and through the use of time travel it gets put back to normal, it should still be shown in this list as we did see an alternate timeline in the episode.

So things like fluidic space and the mirror universe go in to Parallel universe episodes. And things like non-sequitor (which is based on our timeline) stays in this list as it's not meant to be a parallel universe.

The 'cause' column can show for easy instance we see a 'different idea on what has happened in the timeline' in each episode the reason why it changed again.

Possibly I need to add a time column in this article too as we see people going to (or causing) alternate timelines that may not be in the present.

Maybe an Parallel universe episodes can have a 'how' instead of 'cause' to show how they got to the other universe... this won't be needed for the ENT episode with the defiant tho since the whole show is a Parallel universe.

Thoughts anyone?

--Lantizia 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

hmm.. Parallel universe episodes page should have a "type" column and a "method of entry" column to describe the tech or phenomenon how the interaction occured in the ep. I agree it doesn't need a "cause" column for anything. alternative timeline should propably have something like a "cause" and "effect" columns, where cause in the case of Non Sequitur is intersecting a timestream and effect is what event starts the difference, history and events were scrambled in this case. In cases where the alternative timeline was actually the original way things would have gone we use something like original timeline in the cause, and effect is Voyager could not use the transwarp hub to get to Earth for example. --Pseudohuman 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a 'destination' and 'method' for parallel universe episodes, e.g. Fluidic Space and Deflector Dish modified by Seven of Nine. And for this article it is now Time Periods (as you may see multiple time periods along the new altered timeline - like with picard and Q in the last TNG episode)... Cause and Effect columns too. I think that just about covers everything, now comes the task of populating these lists accurately :P --Lantizia 07:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

DS9 Alternate timeline eps

The only ones I can think of are the Past Tense two-parter(a timeline where the UFP didn't exist).

Not sure about "Visionary". O'Brien went into a couple different alternate futures, but is that technically another timeline?--31dot 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly time travel because he physically went to the future and interacted with things - including himself... and the 'travel' can be explained by the singularity do-inky bob. But it did also 'cause' alternate timelines - as any time travel will do. So altho it is different timelines it is also time travel but not a parallel universe :P --Lantizia 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Various other episodes for consideration.

I know 'The City on the Edge of Forever' is technically time travel, but we are briefly treated to a scene where the Enterprise no longer exists, along with an explanation for this alternate timeline. Should this then not be mentioned here if we want a conclusive 'alternate timeline' list?

Additionally, what about ENT: 'Twilight', possibly 'Zero Hour'/'Storm Front', and DS9: 'Visionary', 'The Visitor', TNG: 'All Good Things...', VOY: 'Timeless'?

Or, if I'm mistaken (which in retrospect I suspect I am), are we dealing solely with non-time travel alternate timeline episodes? --AnonyQ 06:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek 11 erases entire TOS,TNG,VOY,DS9...only ENT stay unharmed...

I was now in cinema see the Star Trek 11 and after i leave the cinema,i see all Star Trek episodes on my DVDs was never happend,because that episodes r from destroyed timeline... But the chance for existing of known TOS/TNG/VOY/DS9 still exist... Somebody here designated the alternate time lines & parallel universes can not be same thing... I disagree. If the Cpt.Nero in 24th century prepares to time travel,he must done a choice for begin action. For made a red matter must be done some choices too. As we know by Parallel universes theory,all choices r possible in another reality. So a reality without this time traveling may be exist, in some realities Romulus was saved successfully & there was no reason for Nero´s time traveling, in other reality red matter was not developed,so this time traveling is impossible here, in other reality Nero never born(if Romulans r mammals,he born),so his revange is impossible here, in other reality all hapend,as we have seen in Star Trek 11 and the time line of this reality was erased and replaced from 2233 by new time line and in this time line TOS,TNG,VOY and DS9 must be updated...good chance for Mr.Roddenberry to write new TOS,new TNG,new VOY,new DS9... So,if somebody writes:"parallel universes and alternate time lines r different things",he has right,but i am sure,if something hapend in 1 reality(INCLUDING ALTERNATION OF TIMELINE),in other reality(in other parallel universe)is possible all will hapen other(including alternation of timeline). And the last,what i like to write:TIME IS NOT A LINE!!!This is our simplification only,time may have more dimensions than 1.By the M theory we have 11 dimensions,i am not sure,10 r space & 1 is the time,maybe 8 r space & 3 r time dimensions...It is possible.Time may be a line,but TIME MAY BE A GRID TOO!!! I know,what i say,becaute i am the captain of UFF Fexinthiba & USS Fexinthiba is a time ship:-) Yes,my last sentence is not this universe,but in many other universes this may be true,may be exist a reality with Enterprise flying trough Supergate,may be exist a reality with Asgards fighting with Borg and Goa´uld with Tholians... And if we create a sci-fi,we create an artificial reality. If something exist only in my brain,it is still exist,it is an artificial reality. Existence not must be matter existence.It is possible,we r not real life forms,but only a fantasy of some other being,maybe we all and our universe is a sci-fi in somebody´s mind,but if it is true,we still exist,because we have a consciousness. If i create a Sim City,i may save it 100 times,i create 100 parallel realities,in 1 disasters r disabled,in other enabled,in 1 i will cheat,in other i will not and some realities may be same and if i will run on 2 same computers 2 identical Sim Cities,their history will be same,until i will reload 1 of identical cities without saving...this is a simulation of time travel.I have saved both cities in (for example) 2250,in 3000 i will reload 1 of cities into state from 2250,so history of this city will be partly erased and i will create a new history.The identical city in other computer will be saved with its untouched history,other will be modified by simulation of time travel.This simulates 2 different unconnected parallel dimensions.In 1 dimension virtual time travel changes its history,in other dimension will be not used any time traveling and history stay in original state.Time traveling is an event,time change is an event too and events in parallel realities r not identical. All is possible... flagship too. The preceding unsigned comment was added by USS Fexinthiba. (talk • contribs). Cpt.Kováč. 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Roddenberry died in 1991. Anyway, what does this have to do with the article?--31dot 22:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info about Roddenberry,but it is possible he is not dead in all parallel universes.I wrote it,because his TOS changed to alternate time line because of Star Trek 11. In universe,they was changed by ST11,original time line for TOS is not exist,so TOS must be created again.For example first movie begining TOS cannot be realised because of Enterprise lunch late and Pike is out of Enterprise,may be it can be realised,but no with Cpt.Pike and all episodes with Vulcan can not be realised,because Vulcan is erased from history from 2248.The preceding unsigned comment was added by USS Fexinthiba. (talk • contribs). Cpt.Kováč. 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at- are you trying to say the reality in the new Star Trek movie should be listed here? There is already a link to the appropriate article on the page. --31dot 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We're dealing with a guy talking about Roddenberry "not being dead." I think we've done him well enough lip service. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Still, it is not yet completely canonically clear if all time travel throughout all trek incarnations only create tangential quantum realities. There isn't enough evidence from the new film that this is the case. If they do, then USS Fexinthiba is at some level correct, but it would still be rationalization at this point, considering how many plots have revolved around fixing "the" timeline. It's true that anything that can happen does happen in a parallel reality, and that includes a version of events where the time travel event doesn't take place, but that doesnt make it an alternative timeline even if it is identical to one, it makes it just another parallel reality. --Pseudohuman 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support,Mr(s).Pseudohuman,there is many theories about both topic(parallel universes & time traveling causality),and the problem is-we have only theories,no practical experiences(in this universe of course)and second big problem is my horrible English,so i am sorry,for it,i am from Slovakia,so it is very difficult for me to write correctly,what i think.About parallel universes exist many theories.It is possible,the multi-universe starts with 1 version and the number of parallel realities grow with all choices or situations with more than 1 possible results,and exist the theory,the multi-universe starts with many parallel realities,for example 1000000 and number of realities may be constant or may be grow(subtheories).If the number of parallel universes for the multi-universe is constant,all realities r independent and their history is linear without splits with new choices,if the number of realities is not constant,they may grow with new choices.Theoretically destruction of an reality is possible too.And we have a theory,the alternate timeline & parallel reality may be 1 thing,and we have a theory,this r completely different things.About time we have very much theories too.We have a theory,the change of timeline will rewrite the original timeline and we have a theory,the change of timeline will create a new(maybe parallel)reality,they will be added to the more dimensional time-space continuum.In this case time must be more dimensional and the changes creates a time grid.I believe,what i wrote first,the time traveling is the event like any other event and the time changes rewrites the history of own reality,other parallel realities r independent on changed reality,so we have for example 1000000 parallel realities,in 1 reality its timeline will be changed and history of this reality will be rewrited,but this has no effect to other realities,if this event will be done for example in 250000 realities,in each reality its own change will be done by its own event independently on other realities,but if i will combine the interdimensional traveling & time traveling,for example i will create a wormhole to another time & another reality,it is possible,i can change both realities,because of creating a connection between this realities.I think,a wormhole may be trough space,trough time & may be interdimensional,but may be trough time & space,may be interdimensional & trough time,interdimensional & trough space,and may by interdimensional & trough time & space,so all combined.For artificial wormhole must be specified space coordinates,time coordinates and parallel dimensional coordinates,if some of it i will not specify,this mean same coordinates for both ends of wormhole,so if i will for example specify only the time coordinates to another time coordinates & i will not specify interdimensional & space coordinates,the wormhole will be only trough time.In this case this timetraveling may result only changes in 1 reality,but if i will travel trough parallel realities and time,i may change more realities.But if i will not connect more realities,my timetraveling may change only 1 reality.In this case this event(timetraveling)is independent on parallel realities.Maybe in other reality same timetraveling happen,but independently on my timetraveling in my reality & i am sure,that event will not same in all realities.Better wanna an image of timespacetransdimensional grid...Anyone likes to see it?I will not create the image without interest... And the most important:THIS IS MY FAVORITE THEORY,NOT A COSMIC TRUE,THE TRUE IS UNKNOWN,THERE IS ONLY OUR OPINIONS,BECAUSE THIS TOPIC IS ONLY THEORETIC. If somebody has real experiences with timetraveling or interdimensional traveling,i am sorry for my last sentence. Cpt.Kováč. 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First Contact?

Do the First Contact-related events of Star Trek: First Contact constitute an alternate timeline? Was the original timeline one in which the Enterprise-E crew members were absent and the test flight of the Phoenix flown by Zefram Cochrane himself? --Defiant 19:48, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

There's really no way to know, considering how inconsistent the rules of time travel are. Before the Enterprise episode "Regeneration," I would have said that, originally, the Enterprise crewmembers were absent from the timeline. But "Regeneration" implies that it was all "supposed" to happen. Of course, if this were true, then how could the crew of the Enterprise-E have observed a timeline in which the Borg succeeded in assimilating humanity... ah, I need a drink. -Angry Future Romulan 19:51, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks for that answer. I've discovered some info that James Cromwell apparently considered the First Contact version of events as an alternate timeline, as there's a quote in which he states, "In reality he would have made the choice [to take the flight] anyway. Since they [the Ent-E crew] come back a little earlier than he had made that choice, he is frightened." If it's uncertain whether the events of First Contact are an alt timeline with canon evidence implying otherwise (as you've suggested), I reckon this info from Cromwell can be added to this page as bg info. --Defiant 19:58, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

VOY episode "Relativity" definitively establishes that Ent-E crew were present in the original timeline, as this was a case of a causality loop known as a Pogo Paradox or as Seven of Nine explains it in the episode: "A causality loop in which interference to prevent an event actually triggers the same event...The Borg once travelled back in time to stop Zefram Cochrane from breaking the warp barrier. They succeeded, but that in turn led the starship Enterprise to intervene. They assisted Cochrane with the flight the Borg were trying to prevent. Causal loop complete." --Pseudohuman 20:25, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for that. But Seven has no way to know how the original timeline was, being exclusively aware of the events of her own indigenous timeline (the one in which the Ent-E crew did intervene). Having said that, it's probably the closest to a definitive answer we're ever gonna get, what with the recent invention of the alt reality and all! --Defiant 22:27, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Shatnerverse? ("aternate timeline" referenced from that page)

Should the "Shatnerverse" specifically be mentioned her? The section on it on the Star Trek: The Original Series (Pocket)#Shatnerverse page mentions itbut this page dosen't say exactly "how" it was created. Jimw338 (talk) 23:13, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Never read it, but wouldn't that be more like an alternate continuity? -- Capricorn (talk) 03:59, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

List of alternate timelines

Shouldn't this article have a list of all alternate timelines seen in Star Trek along with what separates them from the prime timeline, who created them and their ultimate fate? ( 22:30, May 3, 2017 (UTC)) How would that work? We couldn't do it with a chart since that's been done on for their page on alternate timelines. I'd put the link to show you but I don't know how to do that. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 00:49, May 5, 2017 (UTC))

So, can someone tell had this would work and if this should be done at all? I all manage to put the link in the talk. Here it is: (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 03:39, May 5, 2017 (UTC))

So should the list of alternate timelines be added to the page or not? I need an answer within a week of leaving this comment. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 04:01, May 6, 2017 (UTC))

I have 2 ideas on how to make the list. Either use a chart like this:

Description Timescale Created by Fate Appearance
Nazi Germany conquers Earth and the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet never form 1930-2267 Leonard McCoy preventing Edith Keeler's death Negated when James T. Kirk stopped McCoy from saving Keeler TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever"

or we could describe in a few sentences like this: 1930-2267: Leonard McCoy prevents Edith Keeler's death, delaying the United States of America's entry into World War II, allowing Nazi Germany to conquer Earth and the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet are never created. This timeline was negated when James T. Kirk stopped McCoy from saving Keeler. (TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever") (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 20:15, May 13, 2017 (UTC))

Alternate reality section error

Why are the second and third examples in the 'alternate realities' section of this page not actually examples of alternate realities but instead examples of alternate timelines? (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 01:00, May 5, 2017 (UTC))

What is the term used in the episodes to describe those examples? - Archduk3 02:02, May 5, 2017 (UTC)
They don't use a term for those examples the episodes other than "future". The reason they're not examples is because that section defies an alternate reality is slightly different from an alternate timeline and those examples are stated to be alternate timelines. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 02:32, May 5, 2017 (UTC))

Alternate timeline episodes redundant?

Isn’t this page redundant? A list of alternate timelines already exists here. (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 08:42, January 25, 2018 (UTC))

I don't think it is redundant as this article is written from a production PoV whilst the other article is an in-universe explanation of what an alternate timeline is with specific examples of such. I would vote that we keep things as they are. --| TrekFan Open a channel 09:07, January 25, 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, they serve different purposes. --Lantizia (talk) 14:30, June 21, 2020 (UTC)


This quote was placed in the Alternate Realities section:

"A parallel universe? The Science Directorate has examined all of these theories. They've found no evidence of alternate realities."
"The Tholians are a little more open-minded than your people. They detonated a tricobalt warhead here, inside the gravity well of a dead star. The explosion created an interphasic rift. A doorway into another universe.

Vulcan's don't believe in parallel universes and Tholians deal with them? So what. A quote needs to offer something, some insight in the subject - it should not just be a random sample of dialog where the subject came up. Also removed is this paragraph:

In at least one example, the same quantum universe had been validated as unchanged, via analyzing the local quantum signature. This confirmation of an unchanged universe was made in spite of time travel resulting in USS Discovery's added absence from the timeline for nine months, having the consequence of the Federation's unstable footing being lost in the Federation-Klingon War. (DIS: "What's Past Is Prologue")

Removed for not being true An universe is validated at the end of the ep, but no quantum signatures were involved. Associated with that I've also removed this accompanying note:

It should be noted that unlike with two similar prior and subsequent occurrences (ENT: "Shockwave", "Shockwave, Part II", TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise"), this timeline was not later negated because the crew of Discovery managed to salvage the situation without additional time travel (DIS: "Will You Take My Hand?"); how the quantum signature would be affected in a true alternate reality is uncertain.

Solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There is no time line change to be negated in Will You Take My Hand? -- Capricorn (talk) 04:37, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Also removed:

Timeline Timescale Created by Status Appearance
The USS Discovery is transported nine months into their relative future while escaping the mirror universe to return to their own universe, during the Federation-Klingon War 2256-2257 Spore drive jump during the mycelial network's rapid regeneration, immediately following the destruction of the ISS Charon's mycelial core. Presumed permanent alteration to timeline. DIS: "What's Past Is Prologue"

There might be time travel there, but there's no timeline being altered. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:48, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

So to confirm, the war map updating to dramatically show that they lost the war, in the nine months following ISS's apparent destruction in the prime universe, is 'no altered timeline'? Duuude Bismarck (talk) 14:40, August 4, 2018 (UTC)
Yes. This happened as part of the normal flow of time. I tried to explain that this was not a true alternate timeline in that note I added because I knew you wouldn't revert that. It wasn't a temporal anomaly or a time traveller changing his relative past that removed Discovery from the timeline - it was the captain's deliberate actions followed by the ship getting lost in the mycelial network on the return journey. ThroningErmine8 (talk) 15:05, August 4, 2018 (UTC)
I will concede, but begrudgingly, mainly because it feels like splitting hairs... Had they overshot 10 months rather than 9, the Klingons would have had ample time to conquer Earth. Had that happened, we would be having a very different conversation. Duuude Bismarck (talk) 16:16, August 4, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.