Is speculative information from the STSC accepted here?Edit

It would be nice to reach some sort of consensus here. Whether it is a Yes or a No isn't really that important, but a decision should be made soon.

I think that At the moment, No, as with other reference works, would be the best answer unless Memory Alpha:Resource policy is changed... -- Cid Highwind 07:46, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)

I think that canon or real-world information should most definitely be used. Certain speculation, like Beta Rigel being a much nearer star than the "real" Rigel, should probably be included with a note saying it's not completely confirmed, but is too logical to ignore. And other stuff, like the filler names of stars in the Klingon and Romulan Empires (duplicating many ship names) can and should be ignored. This is all IMO, of course. -- Dan Carlson 08:03, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)

In this case, I'd suggest to put all information on the page "Rigel" (or "Deneb",... respectively) and mention the possibility of two or more stars of that name in the text - instead of creating an article with a non-canon name such as Beta Rigel. This might sound like nitpicking, but I think the biggest problems will arise if some non-canon information is accepted while the rest is not. ;) -- Cid Highwind 08:17, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)

Agreed. As good a theory it might be, I still think this whole Beta Rigel/Deneb Kaitos stuff is a bit iffy. -- Harry 08:44, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)
I realize that there's not very much supporting evidence as far as canon is concerned. But those kinds of explanations are a whole lot better than believing that the NX-01 took a short jaunt to Rigel -- over 900 light-years away -- in the space of just a couple of days! ;-) -- Dan Carlson 08:48, 22 Jan 2004 (PST)
By my best guess in ENT Broken Bow the 80 hours estimate at even full warp five to Qo'noS is impossible as well cause the maps i have found places the planet at LEAST 150ly from Sol but i guess scince ent say 80 hrs, then its fact huh, lol Its Time For The White! 04:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On page moveEdit

Why was this page moved? What are our naming conventions for reference books here? I mean, Star Trek Encyclopedia isn't Star Trek: Encyclopedia, nor is Star Trek Chronology lk'd to Star Trek: Chronology. --Alan del Beccio 03:48, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Captainmike moved it a year ago (Aug 26, 2004). I just moved the talk page earlier because it matched the content on this page, not the redirect's. I agree that it should be moved to Star Trek: Star Charts though.--Tim Thomason 04:07, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Timo SaloneimiEdit

Should the great Mr. Saloneimi's name be linked from this article, and eventually a page be written, since he was a "technical advisor" on this work?--Tim Thomason 11:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Question concerning contentEdit

Based upon the system detailed in the beginning concerning the organization and numbering of sectors, what would the systematic designation for Sector 001 be? -- Christopher Mules 20:59, 11 April 2006 (EST)

Diameter of planetsEdit

Are you sure that these ultragiants have a diameter of several million kilometers. I mean a size of 140.000.000 kms would be the distance between earth and sun. No planet could become that big, it would rather become a star, or am i wrong? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Map from the "Star Trek: Star Charts" seen on screenEdit

Star charts star chart

Star chart (from "Home").

One of the items sold through the It's A Wrap! sale and auction this week is a STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE "CREW QUARTERS BULLETIN BOARD". This includes a stellar map which was created by Geoffrey Mandel. I went through all episodes of Enterprise today to look for appearances of the map. It was seen in several crew quarters in all 4 seasons of Enterprise:

It was first seen in Daniels quarters in "Cold Front" and then appeared numerous times in T'Pol's quarters and other quarters. Here's a complete listing:

I contacted Geoff Mandel about this map and he replied:

  • "...that was an early draft of the Star Charts book, which I was working on during the first season of Enterprise. Should be similar to the finished map, but since it was seen on the show, I guess it's canon!"

If you take a look at pages 44+45 of the Star Trek: Star Charts you'll see that the maps match.

Well, we've got several new canon stars now, we can link real-life stars with fictional names from the Star Trek universe now and also can make statements about the relative locations of the stars seen on the map, I guess. --Jörg 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We should just be certain about possible differences between this "early draft" and the final map as published in the Star Charts before spreading this info to hundreds of pages - and if we do, please don't just add some episode title as a reference, but make sure that it is made clear that this map is the resource. Thanks :) -- Cid Highwind 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
i have allready found some differences i think. if someone could help me. i now am working on a grapic of that map on ebay. yu can found my "early draft" on ma/de. please help me--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
ok, here is a list of stars that we found untill now:
--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
it should be 47 Ursae Majoris, not 61 UMa. Also there are Iota Horologii (W 15 ly, S 1 ly), the yellow star with the line at circa 1 o'clock, 8 ly out is Delta Pavonis (in Star Charts Benzar), to its right is 59 Virginis, next on the 10 ly circle in yellow is 61 Vir(ginis), below Beta Hyi (Hydri) and then its a bit differntly arranged than in Star Charts, I would presume it should read "Porrima G Virginis"; then there is Alpha Mensae quite far away from the yellow dot it represents (the yellow one between two small blue left-up and two right-below).
Back to the 1 o'clock position, 15 ly out: Heze (Zeta Virginis); 5 ly to the right: Zeta Trianguli Australis (a bit covered by the star), a bit to its top: Gamma Tucanae. The stars on the right top corner are unlabelled except for Nu Octantis and Alpha Circini (which are both placed a bit wrong and too far to the left), they would be Epsilon Phoenicis (Romulus) and 1 Centauri. -- Thats the upper right quadrant I got so far. -- Kobi
OK, i hope ive arranged everything correct if not contact me [1]--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 12:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo Page 66 Edit

I believe the date given on page 66 of STSC for the establishment of Earth Outposts is incorrect. The date given is 2060 not 2160 as it should be. Earth was not warp-capable until 2063. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

A tactical maps questionEdit

Does anyone own the Star Trek: Star Charts book? On page 48 there are two tactical maps that appeared on-screen in DS9. On these maps there are little gray boxes in the corner, that explain what the green and red, orange solid and orange dotted lines represent. I would much appreciate if someone could tell me what the texts read, as I only have illegible images of the pics. --Pseudohuman 03:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

First map:
Red line
Dominion/Cardassian Forces
Green line
Romulan Forces
Solid line
Current Dominion/Cardassian Fronts
Dotted line
Previous Dominion/Cardassian Fronts
Second map:
As above, with "Green" changing from "Romulan" to "Allied".
-- Cid Highwind 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Patriarchy Edit

On one of the maps of the alpha quadrant, there is government called The Patriarchy. However, I can't find anything about them on this wiki or Memory Beta, does anyone know what species they are? 10:22, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Solved - its the Kzinti. 10:26, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Errors Edit

Is it appropriate to have an error section for this book? We don't nitpick episodes, and since the Charts aren't canon I would question doing so even if we did nitpick episodes.--31dot 23:40, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Just remove it - all non-canon stuff has errors. — Morder (talk) 01:00, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Done. Archiving here in case of reposting or disagreement:

Known errorsEdit

Aside from mere speculations without any reference whatsoever and planets or stars simply missing on the maps or certain lists, the Star Charts show numerous clear contradictions, not least due to the fact, that the last three seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise aired after the book's release. Examples:

--31dot 01:43, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

The Romulan Star Empire is located in the Beta Quadrant and does not border the Cardassian Union, which the dialogue in the Deep Space Nine episodes "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Tears of the Prophets" suggest.
I don't think, that this is an specific error. The maps shows a 2D-layer of a real 3D-space. The border can exist above or below the layer of this map. The border of milkyway is about 1000 ly from Sol on z-axis, because near our sun the height of the milkyway is about 2.000 ly. --Mark McWire (talk) 13:31, May 8, 2016 (UTC)

Berengaria vs. Berengaria Prime Edit

I have noticed that on [[2]], which is based on Star Trek: Star Charts, a search of the term "Berengaria" brings up two results--a Berengaria over 100 light-years from sol near Grazer, Beth Delta and Sheliak territory, and a "Berengaria Prime" less than 20 light-years from Sol towards the Romulan Neutral Zone. The former Berengaria, it says, was referenced in TOS:This Side of Paradise, TNG:Conspiracy, and DS9:In the Cards. The latter, Berengaria Prime, is listed as being in ENT:Bound. If anyone has any insight on this, it would be appreciated. 20:42, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

As the Star Charts only covered the first season of Enterprise, this is fan speculation (Bound is a 4th season episode) and therefore pure conjecture. --Jörg (talk) 21:47, August 3, 2012 (UTC)