BCE/CE -> BC/AD Edit

What do they mean?Edit

Silly question maybe, but what's BCE and CE etc..? We use different abbreviations in Dutch. -- Redge 12:37, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

It's basically a non-religious alternative for AD/BC, meaning Common Era and Before the Common Era. -- Cid Highwind 12:46, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)
BC: Before Christ; BC: After Christ(=Anno Domini)

BC wasn't hard to guess, but I've always wandered what AD stood for. Thanks! -- Redge 13:41, 15 Jun 2004 (CEST)

im pretty sure anno domini means more literally, "in the year of our lord".Its Time For The White! =/\=Talk=/\= 20:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing terms?Edit

Surely someone shouldn't have just unilaterally changed all those date terms? --Steve 02:44, 20 Jul 2004 (CEST)]

I changed it back --Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:12, 20 Jul 2004 (CEST)
BCE is about as pointless as calling a Tomato "To-Mat-To". Plus it adds on an extra E, to BC. Which also reminds me, Why is Memory Alpha using this dating system? No where in Star Trek do they even use this system. -- User:Future Historian
We use it because it is correct. Also, please sign up for an acount. Click the blue writing in the top right hand corner, its easier for us to communicate with u that way.Jaz talk | novels 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
...and it is correct because it is a "religiously neutral alternative" to AD/BC; as BCE/CE means "(Before) Common Era." --Alan del Beccio 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Gregorian calendar has been used by Historians for Centuries in the West regardless of religous affliation, even during the times when Star Trek was made. I have yet to met anyone that acutally uses tthe CE system outside of college textbooks. It is confusing, and is unncessary. ----User:Future Historian 07:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well it is what was chose to be used on this website and will likely stay as such. --Alan del Beccio 08:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I've put a comment in order that noone change it every time. - Philoust123 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, "AD" was used by Riker in "The Royale". --Jörg 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AD/BC vs CE/BC Edit

I've run across a few times when a date must be described in one of the above ways, so I have a question: Since they mean the same thing, should we use AD & BC or CE & BC to describe these certain dates? We should only use one set to be consistent. My vote is the secular and more politically-correct CE/BC. Whatever the choice, I think a policy should be reached. -Platypus Man | Talk 19:16, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It has -- -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:38, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't do me any good to tell me that it has. What is it? -Platypus Man | Talk 21:19, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry -- i accidentally cut off the last part of that note when i copied it into the edit summary -- the removed portion reads "our timeline uses CE/BC" -- i can't seem to find a talk page where i remember discussing it however -- someone must've deleted it -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:32, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything regarding such a conversation. I'm curious what the basis was for the decision, as in "The Big Goodbye", when Picard was configuring the holodeck for his Dixon Hill program he specifically said 1941, stammered for a second and quickly added "AD" to it, as if to clarify which 1941. --Alan del Beccio 04:03, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
And for that matter, the DOB of Flint's alter ego was referenced as "BC", iirc. --Alan del Beccio 04:16, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
What do CE and BC stand for? Makon 04:56, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
CE and BC; but to save clicking the link it means, "Common Era" or "Current Era" or "Christian Era" and essentially has the same meaning as "AD". BC just adds the word "Before" before the "CE" aforementioned references, and means the same as BC. --Alan del Beccio 05:28, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
A couple years ago an IP user changed Distant past to BC/AE notation ( ), DarkHorizon reverted it with an explanation it was "scientific notation" -- it made sense to me to at the time, so i've been going by that reasoning since then. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Suits me, as long as no one throws a fit about the occasional use of AD/BC, if and when the use of AD/BC were used in a reference from an episode. --Alan del Beccio 23:41, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
by the way, this has been supported by a couple other users -- the discussion no one could find is Talk:Distant past. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Religious reasonsEdit

We should change BC and AD to BCE and CE, coz well... how many fans are religious? How many watch a show that states that their religeon is wrong? So we must rather change them to BCE and CE. Forerunner is everywear

Nowhere in Star Trek does it state that Christianity is wrong. In fact, Christianity may be the most referenced (including several positive mentions) of any Earth religion. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that Forerunner is stating that Trek is saying that Christianity is wrong. I have no clue where you got that. He's stating that AD/BC are Christian-centric. But with that... that's what's mentioned in Trek. BCE/CE are not mentioned in Trek.
Btw Forerunner... you don't need to add the same question twice to the discussion. :) -- Sulfur 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Might have been that part where he said "How many watch a show that states their religion is wrong?" How would you interpret that Sulfur? ;) --OuroborosCobra talk 15:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Simple. Note that AD/BC are christian concepts. Note that he says that that we should change from AD/BC because a show "states that their religeon is wrong". Where do you get "Christianity is wrong" from that? At the least it should be the other way around. :) -- Sulfur 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Um, you just did my argument for me. Since, as you said, AD/BC are Christian concepts, it is established that "their religion" is synonymous with "Christianity". Therefore, if we substitute the synonymous phrase into the statement "We should change BC and AD to BCE and CE, coz well... how many fans are religious? How many watch a show that states that their religion is wrong? So we must rather change them to BCE and CE.", we get "We should change BC and AD to BCE and CE, coz well... how many fans are religious? How many watch a show that states that Christianity is wrong? So we must rather change them to BCE and CE." If he is using this to justify going to CE/BCE, then he is making a point that Christians already don't watch this show (and therefore this website) because "Star Trek says Christianity is wrong". He isn't arguing going towards AD/BC, he is arguing going away from it. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Cobra... I think you're misunderstanding what both Forerunner and Sulphur are saying. I'm not sure what he meant, really, when he said "How many watch a show that states that their religion is wrong?", but he is arguing to put back BCE and CE as religion-neutral phrases. -- Renegade54 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use BCE?Edit

Shouldn't early history rather be BCE's. I meant there isn't many CEs before the 1600's so it wouldn't be that hard. Forerunner is everywhere these days

AD and BC are used because that's what is mentioned in canon. BCE and CE are not mentioned anywhere. Ergo... we use what Trek used. -- Sulfur 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
As an aside to shut everyone up:
Character first appeared in pulp magazine, "Amazing Detective Stories," copyright 1934, A.D.
That's from TNG: "The Big Goodbye", said by the computer outside the holodeck. When loading the initial story. 'Nuff said. -- Sulfur 18:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See AlsoEdit

See also: Talk:17th century#AD

Divide this articleEdit

This article is only growing larger, i propose we subdivide it by moving the last three subsections to new articles located at 17th century, 18th century and 19th century -- I'm not proposing we create years from 1601 through 1899, just to keep the chronology data in the three "century" articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:41, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)

This has been done in the last week. I'm currently changing the links from early history to the century articles, so that they no longer point to "early history". I also created century redirects, so that further subdivision will not harm the links. -- Kobi - (Talk) 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For my part, I have created an article for each century (1st to 31th) on MA-fr rather than putting them all on one page with a redirection and then separate it in 6 months, because this article gets always bigger and I see no interest in keeping it so long. I was right when I did that months ago because you finally separate the 17th, 18th and 19th weeks after. Now, look for example the 3rd century or 14th century section are largely bigger than the 28th century, which is absurdity. I've also added (see fr:1er siècle) "For information dealing with the real world timeline, see ??th century at Wikipedia." at the top of each century article. - Philoust123 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kahless Edit

  • 9th Century CE - Kahless the Unforgettable unites the Klingon people after his defeat of the tyrant Molor and the Fek'Ihri. Kahless establishes a strict warrior code that is passed down through Klingon culture to the present day.
  • 14th Century CE - Kahless and Lukara fight the battle of Qam-Chee. (DS9: "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places")

Something's wrong with this datation. In the 9th century, he defeated Molor and in the 14th, he fight 500 soldats of Molor. Was the battle of Qam-Chee, badly estimated in the episode DS9: "Looking for par'Mach in All the Wrong Places" ? - Philoust123 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It would make sense that the situation with Lukara happened before defeating Molor. Trekkie4christ 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 14th century - Qo'noS is attacked by a group of plundering aliens, whom the Klingons name the Hur'q. Many cultural artifacts are stolen, most notably the Sword of Kahless. (DS9: "The Sword of Kahless") Also during this period, Klingon warriors set out and slew all of their gods, because they were more trouble than they were worth. (DS9: "Homefront")

Wasn't it Kahless that helped Klingons to deny their gods ? Finally, when does these events took place: in the 9th or 14th century ? - Philoust123 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeterminate PastEdit

  • An unknown race, possibly of extragalactic origin, builds a massive doomsday machine. (TOS: "The Doomsday Machine")

=> My french edition of the fact files states "-50.000 years" for this event. Any confirmation ? - Philoust123 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The population of Talos IV is largely wiped out in a war. Forced to live beneath the surface, the Talosians develop their mental powers, while neglecting their technological knowledge and skills. (TOS: "The Cage" "The Menagerie, Part I & Part II")

=> My french edition of the fact files states "-500.000 years" for this event. Any confirmation ? - Philoust123 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea about either of those, but it seems like this should also mention "God" from Star Trek V being imprisoned in the galactic core. -- Andrew Nagy 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

is there a policy on including elements from non star trek related scifi/fantasy?Edit

If so I've removed all references to the jesus character until someone can show me the episode it was featured in, it seems like this place is turning into a repository for all things scifi, which it isn't supposed to be. This is just someones attempt to add infomration from a widely distributed fantasy novel, which IMO is rather poorly written, even by scifi standards, and more importantly, has no connection to trek -- 14:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It'd at least help to mention which novel that is. Now, various bits of theology related to Earth religions has been mentioned in episodes of Trek throughout the years, and I seem to recall that's why those items were added, but I'm sure that someone with a more detailed knowledge of the intricacies of the episodes would be able to add more. -- Sulfur 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sulfur... the "widely distributed fantasy novel... poorly written, even by scifi standards... no connection to trek" that he's talking about is the Bible. Heh. -- Renegade54 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Jesus Christ

Picture added by Jörg from VOY: "The Omega Directive"

Jesus Christ is a religious figure that appeared in Star Trek. Rightfully or falsely, there are people in the trek universe that believe in christianity, people that cites the Bible, people that celebrate Christmas... I've first added the reference "Jesus Christ is the origin of the Christianity" (8 may). Even if I don't believe in God, I don't believe this comment is fantasy. If you consider he didn't exist, you should reformulate it rather than erase it : "According to christianity, Jesus Christ is born." or something like that. - Philoust123 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vulcan historyEdit

When does the Time of Awakening really occur ? Here it was in the 3rd century, in the ToA article in the 4th century. In my french edition of the "fact files", it was in the 2nd century BC. - Philoust123 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary SevenEdit

Circa 4000 BC and Circa 3700 BC are the same. - Philoust123 17:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I combined both of these and went with the blurbs in both the "Assignment: Earth" and Gary Seven articles that it was 4000BC and shifted them to that date. -- Sulfur 17:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked and it was "approximately 6,000 years ago" in 2368, so 3700 BC was a better choice. - Philoust123 17:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'd suggest updating all three articles to bring them all into line. I don't even recall the episode at all, so was going off of the articles, and figured that if two had them with the same date, that was likely the "correct" one. -- Sulfur 01:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I know this is old... and it seems like it was changed back away from this anyway... but since I'm already editing this page to add something below (Romulans), I figured I'd mention this. TOS was 2268... not 2368. Hossrex 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

5 Billion years agoEdit

It says in the article that the Guardian of Forever was last asked a question on this date, I assume that this refers to the "...Before your sun burned hot in space..." monologue, but I wouldn't take this as literally meaning such, if anything I think this refers to it's creation. anyway you could not get this precise a date from that, I would maybe say >5,000,000,000 years ago, if anything. -ACES HIGH 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In the year AD Nauseum a neutron star in a binary star system located in the Kavis Alpha sector explodes. Edit

Is there any particular reason that we need no less than fourteen references in this article to the "Old Faithful" binary star system in TNG: "Evolution"? Sure, we can reliably say it exploded all these different times, and they're among the few events of this period that we can confirm happened in Star Trek canon. But does it really matter? Why not add "Earth completed a full rotation around the Sun 100 times" to each century, or the dates that Thanksgiving fell on in every year? --Jimsmith 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

removed text Edit

I removed the following entry:

Leif Eriksson founds the Vinland settlement in North America. (TOS: "Space Seed")

Let's limit the timeline events explicitly to what was seen or heard on screen. -- Renegade54 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok... in that case, how many of the entries that Andromeda recently added actually referenced in Trek? Especially the dates. There's been far too much real world information added in there. -- Sulfur 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, out it should go! ;) -- Renegade54 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department Edit

Removed repetitious BC, AD. Removed the repetitious star explosion as it is based on a background extrapolation that assumes 196 years exactly and discounts the fact that the calendar changed and there was no year 0. Fixed a couple of misspellings. --StarFire209 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Memory-Beta links ??? Edit

Why do we need the Memory-Beta links? --StarFire209 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As with everywhere we use them, it gives people information on non-canon, but still licensed material. They link to us on many things, we link to them on many things. This is an area I suggest taking care in opposing, as we have had a rocky relationship with MB, but it has been pretty positive the last year, and that is how we would like to keep it. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's going to get someone's knickers in a knot, it's not worth the irritation to change anything but it does seem a bit excessive. There's no way to do it so the links don't seem so intrusive? (All the links in one section instead of multiple sections; links only where we have data; a link in the beginning instead of a separate section at the end of each one of our sections; anything?) – StarFire209 04:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They could be all moved down to the external links section at the end. Close inspection of many of these links finds that half or so of them all go to the same article, it would be more efficient (and better match how we link to MB in other articles) to do them all together at the end. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That would look better. Thanks and thanks for the info. – StarFire209 04:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you're correct in saying that the MB links don't add anything to canon, but neither do Wikipedia or other external links. If it was canon information we were linking to, it should be in the body of the article itself, not in an external link. Links to external sources, including MB, give the reader access to more extensive information of a non-canon nature; in the case of Wikipedia, it's real-world information, in the case of MB, it's licensed Trek information. Some (perhaps many) of the MB links currently lead to stub or skeleton articles, with the understanding that, just like here at MA, the articles will expand over time and thus become more relevant and useful than they perhaps are right now. -- Renegade54 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

True. It was having the links throughout the body of the article that was off-putting. Seemed like the MB links were being given extra weight. Several links went to the same MB page which was redundant. The way Cobra reworked the article is in line with how the rest of MA shows external links. They exist if you want to use them but they don't get in the way of the canon data. Thanks. – StarFire209 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


  • A group of Vulcans who do not follow Surak's teachings of logic leave their homeworld in a wave of emigration. They settle on various planets in the Beta Quadrant, including Calder II, Dessica II, Draken IV, Yadalla Prime, and Barradas III. They will later come to be known as the Romulans. (TOS: "Balance of Terror", "The Enterprise Incident"; TNG: "Unification II", "Gambit, Part II")

Should not Romulus also be included in that list? -- Hossrex 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Trill joiningEdit

This article gives 22000 years ago as the date of the first Trill joining, but I don't recall any such precise date mentioned in canon; only that the Trill had been joined "for millennia".

Kalandan outpostEdit

Both in 1730 and 730 BC there is this statement: The Kalandan outpost planet, "a few thousand years old" in 2269, may be constructed around this time. (TOS: "That Which Survives"), while in Kalandan outpost is cited 2268 and some ten thousand years ago. May someone be able to kindly fix it? Gifhtalk24.06.2009 00:20 (local time)

Headers Edit

I hate to ask but should the headers really contain references to "3,000 years ago" and "4.5 billion years ago" I mean if this article is proper POV then none of those make sense as the future in which this article is written is an undetermined date which could be 1 million years from the last known Star Trek time slot of 2378. We already have references to the 31st century as the last time which would put the 3k years ago actually more like 4k. I'm not saying I have the answer because I honestly can't really say how they should be written but it is a minor issue with pov, in my opinion. — Morder (talk) 23:38, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the POV of this article is all wrong. We could use the actual Georgian dates, since we already use those for the timeline. - Archduk3 08:46, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
The real problem comes in with '4.5 billion years ago'. What's that work out to? "4.5 billion - 2300" BC? :) -- sulfur 10:02, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
It's not a perfect solution, but it would work and remain within the POV. - Archduk3 10:16, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek DestinyEdit

Why is Star Trek Destiny mentioned under the the bit about the Borg? The Note says "Star Trek: Destiny presents a different point of origin for the Borg." Its not cannon and shouldn't really be mentioned, and I can't help but feel that its favoring this particular Non Cannon over other equally valid ones, there is no mention of the alleged V'ger-Borg Connection/s. I guess I'm saying that I feel it should be removed completely but I wanted to see if others agree with me or not. (Alexlyoko13 (talk) 00:30, August 17, 2012 (UTC))

First, it's "canon" not "cannon". Getting to your question, it is currently all right to mention that since it is formatted as a Background note. However, if there are several different theories in licensed works or other official background information, we should probably link to the Borg page where such things can be better discussed(if not already) to avoid an unnecessarily long bg note here. 31dot (talk) 01:45, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

Dawn of time Edit

Shouldn't the "Dawn of time" text be a link to the Big Bang. Isn't the Big Bang the dawn of time? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).


Captain Jean-Luc Picard stated in his log that the ancient Bajorans had flourished "when Humans were not yet standing erect". Homo Erectus existed on Earth from about 1.8 million years to about 200,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens began to emerge at about 200,000 years ago.

I've removed this bit from the "500,000 years ago" section. The Ensign Ro statement says nothing about when Bajoran civilisation began to flourish, merely that they were doing stuff when Humans were not yet standing erect. But even changing the statement to say they were flourishing at this point is speculatory, as they might have had low points. For example, the statement is perfectly consistent with a scenario where Bajorans had a great civilisation a million years ago, which then felt and was only reestablished millenia ago. Finally, the fact that we don't know when Humans first stood erect according to in-universe sources also doesn't help. I wish something could be done on this page with that statement by Picard, but I don't really see how. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:54, December 16, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.